Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Fish Exports (Aberdeen)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to extend the export of Aberdeen-caught fish to Czechoslovakia and other European land-locked 5/9/2007countries; and how successful they have been.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): Both the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board are prepared to help merchants to develop an export trade in fish to foreign countries. I am informed, however, that at the present time Aberdeen merchants are experiencing difficulty in obtaining suitable supplies to meet their existing export contracts.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that during the last nine months alone Czechoslovakia has imported 900 tons of fish valued at £77,000, besides importing fish from Iceland and Norway, and that the potentialities for Aberdeen and Scotland in general are very great? As negotiations are at present going on between Her Majesty's Board of Trade and Czechoslovakia with a view to enlarging that trade, will he take steps to see that Aberdeen gets a fair share?

Mr. Leburn: I am aware of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and, of course, we want to encourage the export of fish, but with the best will in the world, unless we can meet our existing contracts, it is very difficult to expand it.

Valuation Appeal Committees

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take power to direct valuation appeal

committees, sitting in Scottish island areas, to make special arrangements to ensure that people are not forced to abandon appeals by reason of travel and lodging expenses and other factors of difficulty in those areas.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend regrets that he would not feel justified in asking Parliament to give him power to direct valuation appeal committees on any aspect of their work.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that 90 per cent, of the appeals in the Western Isles had to be abandoned because of exactly these factors which I have mentioned and that that would not have happened had there been decentralisation of the committees, what steps does the Minister propose to take to ensure, first, that the committees work, and, secondly, that justice is done to the people?

Mr. Galbraith: As I said in my Answer, my right hon. Friend does not feel that he would be justified in asking Parliament to give him powers to direct valuation appeal committees; because, from the local knowledge that they have, they would presumably choose a place which is most suited—as, indeed, they are required to do in the original Valuation Act.

Mr. MacMillan: Has the Minister no proposals at all to make sure that appeals are in fact heard? When 90 per cent, of the appeals have had to be abandoned, surely some alternative procedure has to be devised of one kind or another in the interests of the working of the Act. In view of the fact that there is a Bill coming before the Scottish Committee in which he can make this provision, why does not he put that into the Bill now?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that we had better wait until we get to the Bill.

Fishery Protection (Minch)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet sent a reply to Ross and Cromarty County Council about proposals it made last May for fishery protection in the Minch.

Mr. Leburn: Yes, Sir. The county council were informed in August that the question was still under consideration and a letter was sent on 30th October reporting the outcome.

Mr. MacMillan: Would the Minister do us the courtesy of telling us what the outcome was?

Mr. Leburn: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman in exactly the same terms.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will the Minister really press for this reply to be given more precisely to the county council? This is a very serious matter indeed. It affects the small fishermen and crofter fishermen who have virtually no protection in some of their waters.

Mr. Leburn: In short, the answer amounted to an explanation that, in view of the need for economy in Government expenditure, it was not possible at this time to give additional protection.

Pit Closures

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he proposes to assist local authorities in mining areas to plan schemes of work to absorb men who may be unemployed as a result of pit closures.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): My right hon. Friend has no specific proposals on the lines which the hon. Member has in mind. The National Coal Board has advised my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power that alternative work will be available within daily travelling distance of their homes for the great majority of the men affected by the colliery closures which have been announced. For dealing with local employment, the Government will continue to operate the Local Employment Act vigorously.

Mr. Hughes: I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to have any specific proposals, and I should have been surprised if he had, but is he aware that in Ayrshire there may be an unemployment problem in spite of the fact that some men may be absorbed in the new pits? If the Ayrshire County Council or any other local authority puts up useful

schemes of work which would benefit the community and give employment, may we be assured that they will have his support?

Mr. Brooman-White: As I said in my Reply, the Coal Board believes that the great majority of men will have work in nearby collieries. A further factor is that the list of areas in which the provisions of the Local Employment Act can be operated is under regular review.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the question. Even though existing miners may be employed, does he not understand that the closure of the mines will close the opportunity for employment of a large number of youngsters and people coming along? This in itself will create a problem. Will the Government as a whole take that into account and see that something is done about it?

Mr. Brooman-White: We shall continue to watch the situation most carefully.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Fife County Council concerning the future economic prospects of the county, consequent on decisions recently taken by the National Coal Board to close collieries; and what reply he has sent.

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Fife County Council regarding proposed pit closures in Fife; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend has received a copy of a resolution approved by Fife County Council, expressing alarm at what is described as
the inference and suggestions of the Minister of Power concerning the Annual Report of the National Coal Board particularly regarding the Scottish Division".
He has brought it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

Mr. Hamilton: Why is not the hon. Gentleman more specific about what the Scottish Office intends to do in these circumstances? Is he aware that two of the major collieries concerned, Rothes Colliery and Bowhill Colliery, are in the West Fife constituency, that more than


£12 million has been invested in these pits, and that their closure is imminent? In the circumstances, does he deny the validity of the anxieties of Fife County Council, which itself has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on social investment for these mines? Has he no more specific proposals to advance than are already formulated in the Government's policy?

Mr. Brooman-White: The question of Rothes Colliery is a matter for the Coal Board, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In regard to the concern about Rothes, it might be useful to re-emphasise the point made by the Prime Minister yesterday, that it was noted some time ago that miners in the numbers originally expected were not moving into the area and, accordingly, the development of the new town at Glenrothes was re-orientated in 1959 to general industrial development linked with overspill from Glasgow. We trust very much that this will assist in the difficulty.

Dr. Thompson: Does not the Minister think that, although his English colleagues have turned down the demand for an inquiry, there is a case for an inquiry by the Scottish Office into the social and economic effects of the closures on local employment and on the finances of local authorities, in view of the fact that what we are witnessing now is the slow annihilation of the coal industry in Scotland?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are all aware of the circumstances already and an inquiry would not reveal any new facts.

Mr. T. Fraser: Whereas it might be the responsibility of the Minister of Power in the ultimate to decide whether a colliery shall close or not, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the social and economic consequences of the closures in the various areas of Scotland are the responsibility of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Will he undertake to consult his right hon. Friend about the desirability of an inquiry being made into the social and economic effect of the closures on considerable parts of Scotland?

Mr. Brooman-White: The first point is that the Coal Board is confident that the great majority of men can be re-absorbed. The second point, in regard

to any ancillary difficulties, is that we very much hope that it will be possible to meet these under the existing powers.

Mr. Gourlay: The Minister's last answer is wholly unsatisfactory. Does not he realise that his statement that miners can be absorbed in other pits is quite wrong, because what happens is that pits which are being operated economically at present become uneconomic as a result of the great influx of men from the closed collieries? Is he aware that a great deal of alarm and despondency have been created among the mining fraternity of Fife, in particular, because of the implications of his right hon. Friend's statement in the House a few weeks ago, that collieries at present working to full capacity are threatened by that statement, and concern is being felt not only by the newest recruits but by the men at the top of the industry? Will he press his right hon. Friend to secure a debate in the House and come clean on this matter?

Mr. Brooman-White: It is because we are well aware of the anxieties that I have been trying to re-emphasise in my replies that the Coal Board is confident that the very great majority of the men can be reabsorbed into other pits.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the terms of the letter he received from the Presbytery of Ayr on the proposed closure of collieries in Scotland; and what was the nature of his reply.

Mr. Brooman-White: The letter which my right hon. Friend received at the end of last week from the Presbytery of Ayr enclosed a copy of a resolution which in effect supported the Scottish miners in their call for a public inquiry into the working of the coal industry in Scotland. My right hon. Friend will refer the Presbytery to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) on 13th November.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister give a definite assurance to the ministers of the presbytery that there will be no unemployment as a result of these pit closures?

Mr. Brooman-White: I do not think that I can add to the answers which I gave to previous supplementary questions on this same point.

Orange Juice

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the amount of welfare orange juice issued in Scotland in June and July, 1960, and in the corresponding months of 1961, indicating the percentage reduction in each case.

Mr. Galbraith: The estimated numbers of bottles of welfare orange juice issued in June and July, 1960, were 200,000 and 175,000 and in June and July, 1961, 40,000 and 45,000. The reductions between the corresponding months are 80 per cent, and 75 per cent.

Mr. Gourlay: Is not this one of the strongest possible condemnations of the harsh attack which the Government have made on the welfare of Scottish children? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this disincentive to the use of welfare foods by reducing the price of them to the former figure and thereby help to maintain and sustain the welfare of Scottish children?

Mr. Galbraith: The important thing is not the amount of these welfare foods being consumed but whether or not the health of children and expectant and nursing mothers is suffering. We have no evidence that that in fact is so.

Mr. Millan: Then why do we have a welfare foods scheme at all? Are not the Government virtually abolishing the scheme, and would it not have been at least honest for them to have done it outright instead of doing it in this underhand way?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not agree.

Roads (Farming Areas)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of unclassified and unadopted roads in upland farming areas will be eligible for grant assistance under the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, in the present financial year; what mile age will be improved next year; and what sum of money will be made available.

Mr. Brooman-White: In 1961–62, my right hon. Friend expects to authorise schemes covering about 50 miles of road thereby virtually completing the distribution of the £1 million allocated to Scotland under the Act. The total mileage will be about 370; of this 104 miles have been completed and it is expected that about half the rest will be completed by the end of 1962. My right hon. Friend's proposals for expenditure in 1962–63 will be declared when the Scottish roads Estimate is published next year.

Mr. Brewis: Are not these figures of mileages and sums expended very small compared with the need? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we want to keep people living in these upland areas, we must be prepared to spend on the small hill roads as well as the trunk roads? Can he say what progress has been made in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, and when he expects to authorise any further schemes?

Mr. Brooman-White: I know that the county council has one or two schemes in mind which it would still like to do, but I think that the stewartry has had 16 schemes approved, which is a substantial proportion of its requirements.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend make sure that there are no financial cuts in this very important expenditure?

Storm and Flood Damage, Galloway

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the widespread damage and loss caused throughout Galloway by the storm and floods of 22nd October; and whether he will make a suitable contribution to local funds organised to relieve distress.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend is aware that some damage and loss did occur in the area, which has since been visited by his engineers. Various forms of remedial works may qualify for Government grant under the appropriate Acts, but, on present information, he does not consider that Government assistance to local relief funds would be justified.

Mr. Brewis: If this storm had struck in Essex or the south of England, would it not have been a major disaster? Is my hon. Friend aware that local funds raised amount to only about one-seventh of the damage suffered by householders in the area, and will he say what assistance is to be given to the county councils to help in repairing roads, piers, breakwaters, bridges and the like?

Mr. Brooman-White: There has been considerable damage to roads, and a joint inspection has been carried out by the county engineer and an engineer from the Department. The county council has already been informed that the bulk of remedial work will qualify for grants under the Coast Protection Act at the rate of 75 per cent, and the remainder at 50 per cent. of the cost of the work.

Mr. Ross: Does not the recurrence of these floods in this area show how inadequate are the two miserable flood prevention Acts which the hon. Gentleman supported and would not strengthen at our request?

A.8 (Glasgow-Greenock Section)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to authorise the reconstruction of the Glasgow-Greenock section of the A.8 trunk road to provide for a dual carriageway system to meet present and future traffic requirements.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend has no plans yet for starting any major reconstruction work on this road since others must take priority at present. He has, however, appointed consultants to investigate the practicability of a bypass of Renfrew serving Abbotsinch airfield.

Dr. Mabon: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that there is already considerable congestion on this road and that it is estimated that it is carrying double the traffic for which it was intended? Could the hon. Gentleman arrange for an early check to be made on these figures and make a statement as soon as possible about trying to include this road in the next estimates?

Mr. Brooman-White: The traffic census of last August showed that there

was an overload on this road, but it is building up at considerably below the general average rate. We are fairly confident that by the time the dual carriageway is built, or prior to that, there will not be a serious problem.

New Hospital, Greenock

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to build a new general hospital to serve the needs of the people of Greenock and district in view of the pre sent inadequate facilities and shortage of beds.

Mr. Galbraith: The Western Regional Hospital Board is at present working out the precise general hospital needs of the Greenock area. This is the first stage in the planning of the new hospital, and it is too early to say when building will start.

Dr. Mabon: That is a very disappointing reply. Would the Under-Secretary of State care to visit the eye infirmary and the X-ray department in Greenock to see the inadequate and primitive conditions which doctors and patients are obliged to endure? Would the hon. Gentleman ensure that this hospital is included in the ten-year programme about which the Government have made great announcements and which was the excuse for the Health Service cuts this year?

Mr. Galbraith: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's invitation, which I shall certainly consider.

Poor-roll Solicitors

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the decision of poor-roll solicitors in Glasgow and Dunbartonshire to work to rule from 31st December, 1961; and what action he proposes to take to implement the recommendation of the Guthrie Report, published in May, 1960, that legal aid should be extended to cover criminal proceedings.

Mr. Brooman-White: I understand that in Glasgow and Dunbartonshire applicants for the benefit of the poor's roll are now required to produce affidavits setting forth their circumstances. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend is considering


the Report of the Guthrie Committee, but he is not yet ready to make a statement about the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Millan: Has not the Minister any sense of urgency about this matter? Is he not aware that the whole scheme is likely to break down in Glasgow and Dunbartonshire? Why do we have to get into a state of crisis before the Secretary of State ever does anything? Why cannot he do something in this matter now? He has had the Guthrie Report for about 18 months.

Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Guthrie Report made it clear that the trouble in Scotland could not be dealt with simply by bringing into force the provisions of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949. The changes which the Committee recommended will need legislation, and that is still under consideration.

Housing

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of local authority houses likely to be built in 1961–62 and 1962–63, respectively.

Mr. Galbraith: Present estimates assume the completion of 18,000 houses by Scottish local authorities in 1961–62 and 16,500 in 1962–63.

Mr. Ross: In view of the housing problem in Scotland, is not the Undersecretary of State ashamed to make such an announcement and to declare that next year he will reduce the expenditure by £1 million? In view of the condition of Scotland's housing problem, is not this scandalous?

Mr. Galbraith: The Hon. Gentleman asked a Question which enabled him to get an Answer which enabled him to ask his supplementary question in the way that he did. The figures, of course, which have not been included are those for building by the Scottish Special Housing Association, the development corporations and private builders.

Mr. Ross: But surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Government's own White Paper includes these organisations in this reduction of £1 million. They are all to be reduced next year.

Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what the figures are for the bodies to which he has just referred? When he has added those figures to the 18,000 which he has mentioned, does the estimate come within even an appreciable extent of Scotland's housing need?

Mr. Galbraith: The figures for completions for the last two years and the two succeeding years are 21,600, 21,500, 21,300 and 21,000 to the nearest hundred.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do not these figures imply that young married couples will still have to wait five years in rooms with their in-laws before they get the chance of a house?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will have to wait that time before he gets an answer to his question.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory reply which I did not receive, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Secondary School Courses, Lanarkshire

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of schoolchildren in Lanarkshire allocated to a three years' secondary course has subsequently been re-allocated to a four or five years' course.

Mr. Brooman-White: In session 1959–60, the latest for which figures are available, 81 pupils, or about 0·5 per cent. of the total number taking three year secondary courses, were transferred to senior secondary courses.

Mr. Lawson: Does not this show how exceedingly difficult it is to get out of this classification once it has been made? Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the three-year courses in this part of Scotland do not synchronise with the four-year and five-year courses and that if a youngster wishes to continue at school beyond the age of 15 years there is practically nothing that he or she can do but repeat the third-year curriculum of the third-year course? Is not this a very bad situation?

Mr. Brooman-White: I think that the whole of this matter will come up for


further consideration when the report of the Advisory Council on Promotion Procedures is published, and I hope that that will be very shortly.

New Technical School, Motherwell

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the date upon which it is proposed to commence building the new technical school at Motherwell.

Mr. Brooman-White: No date can be given at present. Accommodation proposals were submitted by the education authority in July and have been discussed with representatives of the authority. As a result of these discussions, the authority is now formulating revised proposals which we are awaiting.

Mr. Lawson: Does the Under-Secretary of State recall that it is more than five years since this decision was taken? In view of the admitted urgency and agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of technical education, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is very unfortunate, to say the least, that we are still as far back now as we were five years ago?

Mr. Brooman-White: I hope that we can make progress in this matter, but it is primarily one for the education authority. I believe that, owing to the provision of these facilities at the other four existing colleges in Lanarkshire, the authority did not regard this question as one of high priority.

Minor Offences (Trial)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that due expedition is shown in hearing the cases of persons charged with minor offences in Scotland.

Mr. Brooman-White: This is a matter that my right hon. Friend keeps under review in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and, as the hon. Member knows, the number of sheriffs-substitute and the staffing arrangements for the courts are adjusted from time to time. In addition, courts where business is heavy are given temporary assistance.

Mr. Rankin: The Secretary of State has been keeping this matter so long

under review that he seems to have forgotten about it altogether. Does the Under-Secretary of State realise that the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Thomson, recently protested against these unfair delays to the persons charged—they run to about four months—and that the Sheriff of Ayr and Bute recently said that this was a scandalous situation? Could not the hon. Gentleman encourage his right hon Friend to be a little more active and indicate now any steps that could be taken to reduce these delays?

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend certainly has not forgotten about this matter. With regard to Glasgow's difficulties, which have become greater, I think that the recent appointment of an additional sheriff-substitute and provision of new court room facilities should speed things up.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister not realise that the right to a speedy trial involves an honoured principle of British law which still applies in Scotland? Will he take a lesson from what is being done in England by the speedy appointment of more judges and ensure that accused persons are not kept confined longer than is necessary and are brought to a speedy trial?

Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that in fixing dates for trials priority is invariably given to those cases in which the accused is in custody because he has been refused bail.

Hospital Services, West Fife

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from general practitioners in West Fife on the future of hospital services in the area; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Galbraith: These representations dealt with several aspects of the planning of the hospital services in the area, which my right hon. Friend has invited the practitioners to pursue with the regional hospital board as the responsible authority.

Dr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that his reply is most insulting, that medical practitioners only write to a Minister of the Crown when they are


seriously concerned, that as a professional body they are not given to exaggeration, that they asked for his intervention because they are desperately concerned about the state of hospital services in West Fife and that they cannot afford to wait 20 years as planned for the new general hospital? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter and do something?

Mr. Galbraith: My reply certainly was not meant to be insulting, and I apologise if the hon. Member took it that way. The regional hospital board has agreed to meet the board of management to discuss the matter, and at this juncture it would be better to leave it at that.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nobody in Fife is satisfied with his passing of the buck continually to the regional hospital board, and that it is the view of the general practitioners and the general body of the public in West Fife that it is the function of the Secretary of State to exert pressure on the Government to get more money to give to the regional hospital boards? What is the hon. Gentleman doing in that regard? Furthermore, can he tell me when I will get an answer to the invitation which I issued to him at least two months ago to come with me to Fife to see the deplorable conditions in the Northern Hospital in Dunfermline?

Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's invitation again. I must admit that I had forgotten it. It is the second invitation I have had today, so I shall pay more attention to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Foreign Shipyards (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport what conclusions he reached as a result of his tour of foreign shipyards; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 8th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams).

Mr. Strauss: The Minister did not say very much on that occasion. While we all support him in any action he may take to make the British shipping industry more competitive, may I ask whether he gained any information as a result of his visit which was not already known to the British shipping industry? If so, what use is he making of it? Has he put it before both sides of the industry, and what has their reaction been?

Mr. Marples: I gained information which was not known before. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is in touch with both sides of industry and I am consulting closely with him, because I am certain—without casting any doubts about who has been responsible in the past—that we must get the relationship between management and men better. Another by-product of my tour abroad was that I managed to get quite a number of inquiries here. I have with me a letter from a shipbuilding firm stating that it has now been asked by a Norwegian company to tender for a ship and adding:
I think their last paragraph about your visit is a very nice tribute and, I am sure, justified.
The last paragraph which is referred to was to the effect that the Norwegian company would put inquiries here which they did not put here before.

Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister answer one simple question within the limit of what he saw? Can he say whether modernisation in those shipyards is more advanced than in Britain?

Mr. Marples: The best of our yards are equal to their yards, but there are quite a number of yards in this country which are not equal to the best in other countries.

Mr. J. Howard: Did my right hon. Friend find the same multiplicity of unions and the same lines of demarcation in yards abroad as exist in this country?

Mr. Marples: No, I did not.

Mr. Shinwell: If the Minister is claiming that as a result of his visit to Norway an order is likely to be placed by a Norwegian firm in this country, why does he not go away more frequently?

Mr. Marples: I am so fond of the right hon. Gentleman that I could not part company from him for too long.

Coastal Shipping

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to stop the number of British ships engaged in coastwise shipping from shrinking further; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: I am aware of the decline in the number of British ships engaged in coastwise shipping. Nevertheless, I do not consider that this situation is such as to call for special measures by the Government at the present time, apart from the provision which has been made for coastal shipping in the Transport Bill at present before the House. I am, however, keeping the position under close review and will continue to do so.

Mr. Browne: I think that that is an unsatisfactory Answer. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the disastrous contraction in the size of our shipping fleet is having very grave repercussions on, amongst other things, our small ports? Will he not now take steps to see that our coastwise trade is carried only by ships which fly the British flag unless there are reciprocal agreements, and will he in any case take steps to see that the proper manning scales are fulfilled in foreign ships plying round our coasts?

Mr. Marples: I must say that I have not had any request from the General Council of British Shipping to exclude foreign vessels from the coasting trade. If we were to do this it would be a very serious step indeed.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House, too, share the concern expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), that coastwise shipping is a necessary part of our transport industry, and that it should be possible for the Minister to decide as a practical matter, if he wants so to do, that certain types of traffic ought to be taken on the sea to relieve our over-congested roads? Is he aware that we need something more than his looking at the matter? Will he make a statement to give us some idea exactly what is going on?

Mr. Marples: Competition between road, rail and coastwise shipping can be discussed on the Bill which will be introduced next week, that is, the Transport Bill. I am bound to say that in 1960, for the first time in many years, the tonnage of cargoes carried in United Kingdom vessels in the non-coal tramp trades increased.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the coastal shipping people are anything but satisfied with what is now in the Transport Bill, and will he have the courage to stand up and tell the House what is the position? Is he aware that unless we are to get more protection for coastwise shipping I myself at any rate have no intention of voting for the Bill?

Mr. Marples: In answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the next time my hon. Friend supports me will be the first time. The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that we could debate that next week.

Mr. Ridsdale: In order to encourage the smaller ports, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to improve the communications to those ports, as certainly much more encouragement is needed in that sphere?

Mr. Marples: I am quite certain that that is a good point, and Lord Rochdale and his Committee are looking at that particular point.

Credit Facilities

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will publish a White Paper giving details of the information he has received regarding the credit facilities now being offered by the principal foreign competitors of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Marples: The information which I have received, some of it confidential, demonstrates that the credit facilities offered even within one country vary widely from one transaction to another, depending on the commercial prospects and, in some cases, conditions imposed by the Government. In these circumstances it would be neither appropriate nor helpful to publish a White Paper.

Mr. Ridley: Surely my right hon. Friend is aware of the very strong feeling that this is one of the disadvantages our industry suffers under? The more information he can give to clear this up the more welcome it will be, so that we may know where we stand in our shipping industry.

Mr. Marples: The difficulty is that if we produce a White Paper we want it to be comprehensive, to show what people abroad are doing. The difficulty is to find a comprehensive picture. The picture we have now got at present in the Ministry is that credit facilities are not necessarily a handicap to our exports.

Mr. Rhodes: May I ask the Minister to get a small booklet which was issued by the Federation of British Industries yesterday as a result of a visit made by Sir Norman Kipping and another gentleman to Japan, where they say, on page 15, that
A Japanese exporter of shipping"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Verbatim quotations from articles are out of order in Questions.

Mr. Rhodes: May I draw the Minister's attention to this publication?

Mr. Marples: I am very grateful. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send it to me, and I will read it, but we are not losing orders to Japan. We are losing orders to Sweden, Germany and Holland, and they do not get credit facilities.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If my right hon. Friend cannot produce a White Paper about credit facilities offered to foreign competitors, could he publish one to show how streamlined trade union representation works to the advantage of both the workers and industry?

Mr. Marples: I think the best thing I can try to do is to get this industry efficient as soon as we can without attributing blame to anybody.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should the Minister regard as confidential information he has received while overseas in connection with credit facilities furnished by financiers and shipbuilders to enable them to build British ships? Is it not very important that we should know all the facts so that we can decide upon a policy of our own? Is he aware that

there is nothing confidential about our position in this country? Why should he be confidential about the position elsewhere?

Mr. Marples: If people give me information confidentially I intend to treat it confidentially and not to publish memoires.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

50 m.p.h. Speed Limit

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport the total mileage of roads under a 50 m.p.h. speed limit; how many miles of this type of road were previously subject to a 40 m.p.h. speed limit; and how many were previously derestricted.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): None, Sir. But on 15 weekends during the summer a speed limit of 50 m.p.h. was imposed experimentally on 750 miles of trunk road. All these roads were previously unrestricted. The experiment ended on 17th September and its results are now being studied.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the imposition of an overall speed limit prevents accidents? Is it not a fact that at one time of the day it might be safe to drive at 50 m.p.h. but that at another time it might be extremely dangerous? Is it not wise to try to prevent the imposition of speed limits wherever possible?

Mr. Hay: I do not think I would disagree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Our experience with this type of experiment is that last year we found a substantial drop in the number of accidents as a consequence of it. This year, we think that the same picture is likely to be repeated, but we are awaiting the results of the experiment.

Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport the total expenditure from Exchequer funds on the new road construction and major improvements in Glamorgan, Carmarthenshire, Brecknockshire, Pembrokeshire and Monmouthshire in the five years ended 31st March last.

Mr. Hay: Approximately £7·5 million, including land costs.

Mr. Gower: Despite what has been done, is there not evidence that the new works have not been commensurate with the tremendous industrial growth of the region?

Mr. Hay: I would not agree on that. We have been doing a great deal of work in Wales. Over the next six or seven years, we plan to spend an additional £50 million, which will include the Severn Bridge. Wales will, of course, receive the terminations of the London to South Wales and the Birmingham to South Wales motorways. We have not being doing too badly.

Mr. Abse: Is it not clear that the comparatively small amount which has been spent in comparison with the expanding industrial needs will mean that if there is closure of passenger railway lines in Monmouthshire there is every danger of industry in Monmouthshire choking itself on its own roads?

Mr. Hay: That does not altogether arise on this Question.

Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire (Report)

Mr. Box: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the comprehensive report on future highway requirements in South Wales and Monmouthshire prepared for the Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire, a copy of which has been sent to him: and what plans he has for road development in that area.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport if he has studied the report prepared by the Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire, a copy of which has been supplied to his Department; and what reply he has made to the Association.

Mr. Marples: This is a valuable Report and I congratulate the Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire on its initiative. It is useful to my Department to have independent reports like this. I am studying its proposals and hope to make a further statement before long. In the meantime I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a note of my plans for highway improvements in the area.

Mr. Box: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that that is not a fully satisfactory reply? Has he noticed that this comprehensive report points out that already half the trunk roads in South Wales are overloaded and that the position is likely to get considerably worse in the future? As Wales has been rather the Cinderella of our road programme in the past, does my right hon. Friend not agree that it should be given greater priority in future road plans?

Mr. Marples: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. It grieves me, but I cannot, because during the next six to seven years the programme of work in Wales and on the Severn Bridge will amount to more than £50 million worth, not far short of the report's recommendations.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend note that some of the work for which he gives credit in Wales is work really in the Midlands? He attributes the Birmingham motorway as a benefit to Wales. Well, it may be, remotely, but will my right hon. Friend consider what actually is being done in the Principality?

Mr. Marples: I have done. I went to look at it myself. I think it good.

Mr. LI. Williams: Does the Minister think that the possible closure of the railway train services in Monmouthshire will not accentuate the very serious road shortage which we already have in that area?

Mr. Marples: I doubt it, but there is another Question on the Paper about that.

Following is the note:

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE

1. I propose to carry the London-South Wales Motorway from the Welsh end of the Severn Bridge westwards to form a by-pass of Newport.

2. The main trunk road improvements I have planned in South Wales are:

(a) The coast road (A.48) from the end of the Newport By-Pass to North of Swansea;
(b) the Heads of the Valleys Road;
(c) the road from Ross to Newport;
(d) the Taff Vale Road from Cardiff to Abercynon.

All except (b) will be brought up to two-lane dual carriageway standards.

Some lengths of the coast road have already been improved and other lengths—notably the Port Talbot By-Pass—are due for an early start. Work is under way on parts of the Heads of the Valleys Road and more is due to start very soon. Work has also started on the improvement of part of the Ross-Newport road.

3. The classified road improvements in South Wales and Monmouthshire include the Swansea East Side Approach Road, the bulk of which is now completed, and the Newport Second Bridge.

Mr. Abse: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the comprehensive report on highway requirements in Monmouthshire prepared for the Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire, a copy of which has been sent to him; whether he is aware that the Pontypool-Newport road is now carrying more than twice its designed capacity; and whether he will order an enquiry into the effects of closures of railway passenger lines in Monmouthshire upon traffic volume on the Pontypool-Newport road.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. I am aware that this trunk road is carrying twice its designed capacity. I am now considering the recent recommendation of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee that the proposals to withdraw passenger services on the Eastern and Western Valley railway lines should be agreed. The Committee's report takes account of road traffic conditions and I do not think another inquiry at this stage would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Abse: In view of the fact that the Industrial Association's comments have been published since the Consultative Committee met, may I ask the Minister whether he will give an assurance that, bearing in mind that 15,000 units a day use this Pontypool—Newport road, he will not take action which will throw all the people hitherto using the passenger service on to a heavily overloaded road of this character?

Mr. Marples: I cannot give an assurance of that sort until I have examined in detail the evidence put before the Consultative Committee.

Mr. M. Foot: Is the Minister aware that conditions on this road have to be seen to be believed? Therefore, will he go and see them? Does he not recognise that it would be absolutely shocking

if he were to agree to the British Transport Commission's proposal for stopping the passenger services before there had been a really radical effort to deal with the whole road problem in the area?

Mr. Marples: I do not think that any decision should be arrived at before the evidence has been examined.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the Minister not have another look at this type of thing? He will be aware that a Select Committee of the House, when considering this question last year, asked the Government to accept some social responsibility as distinct from the profit-and-loss account which the Transport Commission has to consider when it closes branch lines? Will the Minister not give some directive, irrespective of what will be proposed in the new Bill, with a view to keeping these social amenities still available to the public?

Mr. Marples: I was asked for my comments on this case. Obviously it is impossible to give a decision until the evidence laid before the Consultative Committee has been seen by me.

Mr. LI. Williams: When does the Minister expect to complete his study of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee's report?

Mr. Marples: Not until I have received it.

Temporary Flyovers

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport whether in order to prevent traffic congestion he will, as a temporary measure, erect pre-fabricated steel bridges to carry traffic at points such as the crossing of A.5 and A.41 on the North Circular Road.

Mr. Hay: We are studying various possible sites for temporary flyovers including some in the London area.
We are about to publish our proposals for a permanent flyover at Brent Cross. A temporary flyover there would have too short a life to be worth while. Consulting engineers are investigating the situation at the A.5 junction.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Many people will be pleased to hear that news. Would my hon. Friend say on general principle that these temporary steel prefabricated bridges have been a great


help, not only at Knightsbridge but in other parts of the country?

Mr. Hay: Yes, indeed, not only at Knightsbridge, but also the excellent example put up in Birmingham recently. We do not rule out the possibility of having temporary flyovers where the ground is suitable for them. I only say that they should really be suitable for the sites and have a reasonably long life, otherwise the money is wasted.

M.1

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will authorise the extension of aluminium slotted screening between the carriageways to the entire length of the M.1.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. Although this experimental screen gives protection against glare from approaching headlights, there is no indication that its presence has, in fact, helped to reduce accidents. It may encourage drivers not to dip their headlights, thus increasing danger and discomfort from dazzle in the driving mirror from the lights of following vehicles. The screen is definitely not adequate as a crash barrier.

Commander Kerans: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this antidazzle barrier should be erected throughout the length of the carriageway? It certainly acts as a wind-break. Only the other day a lorry overturned on the M.1. Will he not look into the matter again? Would he not agree that the cost is well worth while even if only a few lives are saved each year?

Mr. Marples: There is a committee which sits continually to consider safety on the M.1, and we have members of the Road Research Laboratory on it. They are not satisfied that what my hon. and gallant Friend asks for is justified at present.

Mr. Dance: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people like myself who use this road fairly frequently, including the other day when the lorry overturned, find it quite invaluable to have this light barrier down the middle of the road? I notice particularly that where the barrier stops is the place where the dazzle starts again.

Mr. Marples: This road is being observed almost daily by the Road Research Laboratory and my engineers. If my hon. Friend has any evidence to offer to them I will certainly see that it is sent.

Junction, Harrow (Traffic Lights)

Mr. John Page: asked the Minister of Transport when he will announce the plans for a new traffic control system at the junction of Alexandra Avenue and Northolt Road, Harrow.

Mr. Hay: An improved layout for this junction, including traffic signals, has now been approved. I understand that the highway authority is now obtaining estimates of cost and hopes to proceed quickly with the scheme.

Mr. Page: While thanking my hon. Friend for his comments, may I ask whether he realises that plans for this road junction were first produced ten years ago? Is he aware that from personal experience I can tell him that it is impossible to join the main stream of traffic at this junction except by shutting one's eyes tight and accelerating?

Mr. Hay: I would not advise my hon. Friend to do that. We certainly are aware of the difficulties at this place. That is Why we are getting on with this work, and it is a poor heart that never rejoices.

West Auckland By-pass

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Transport if in view of the unemployment in South-West Durham, he will authorise the early construction of that part of the West Auckland by-pass which will improve access to the new Fielden Bridge industrial site at St Helen's, Auckland.

Mr. Hay: This by-pass would be on a classified road for which the Durham County Council is the highway authority. It has not as yet proposed its inclusion in the road programme. Until it does so we cannot consider it for inclusion.

Mr. Boyden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the shortage of money for this purpose? Could he not make money available so that several things could


be done at once, 100 acres of industrial development laid out, unemployment in the area relieved, and everybody satisfied?

Mr. Hay: The hon. Member has not followed my original Answer. I said that until the Durham County Council puts forward a proposal for this road, which is one of its roads, we cannot consider it for inclusion in the county council's programme. The ball is in the council's court. When the council eventually brings its proposal forward we will try to do what we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Parcels and Goods Service, North-Eastern Region

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to investigate the railway parcels and goods service and make a report to him.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. This is not an appropriate subject for a general direction. Users who are dissatisfied with the Commission's services can make representations to the transport users' consultative committees.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the Minister not aware that users who are dissatisfied have been making representations in the North-Eastern Region for at least the past four years without getting any improvement in the services? Does he not know that British Railways in that region are facing great difficulty about staff, and so on, which is interfering with the efficient working of the service and that they cannot possibly get better staff unless better wages are paid? Why does not the Minister do something about that if he will not have an inquiry?

Mr. Marples: The question of wages is another subject. The Commission has said that in the three months ending 30th September the North-Eastern Region handled many hundreds of thousands of parcels but only 34 complaints of delays were received.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In such cases of delay, is it not useful to take up the matter with the general manager of the

region concerned, from whom one might get more satisfaction than from any committee?

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the Minister not aware that that has been done all the time?

Mr. Marples: When there have been only 34 complaints from handling hundreds of thousands of parcels, it is straining one's imagination too much to believe that the service in the North-Eastern Region is inefficient.

Severn Tunnel (Incident)

Mr. Abse: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of public concern, following upon a recent outbreak of fire in a diesel engine travelling through the Severn Tunnel, with the existing safety system used in the tunnel; what action he is taking to investigate the present safety arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. I am aware that some concern has been expressed in the Press about this incident. It has already been investigated by the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways and he is following up certain points, but in general the present safety arrangements are considered satisfactory.

Mr. Abse: Is it not a fact that instead of the tell-tale wire, which when cut communicates itself to the signal box on the other side, being cut, unfortunately the telephone communication wire was cut, with the consequence that there was no possibility of communication from the broken-down train with the outside of the tunnel? If that was the case, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that some action will be taken to protect the telephone wire so that there will be no possibility of a recurrence of such an incident? Will he also tell the House whether he is prepared to give proper instruction to all those who act as guards in the tunnel?

Mr. Marples: They already have instruction. On one side of the tunnel is a telephone wire. On the other side is a tell-tale wire which when broken sends an alarm to the signal box. On this occasion the guard made a mistake. He cut the telephone wire instead of the telltale wire. This is one of those human


things which occur. Generally speaking, anyone who goes through the tunnel is trained and instructed on which side of the tunnel the tell-tale wire is located.

Mr. Abse: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that this is only a matter of human frailty. What steps has he taken to prevent a recurrence, such as replacing the tell-tale wire? How does he distinguish between one wire and the other? This is a most unsatisfactory reply.

Mr. Marples: The distinction between the telephone wire and the tell-tale wire is that the telephone wire is on the one side of the tunnel and the tell-tale wire is on the other.

Catering Establishments

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to examine the advantages of reducing the prices in the catering establishments of British Railways, in view of the success attending experiments of this nature.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these experiments concerned a group of railway employees who took over a refreshment room which was not paying and made it pay by reducing prices? Would he take notice of the talent that resides in railway employees and when he makes appointments to the Transport Commission look to that source?

Mr. Marples: Certainly, but I should like to have more information on how much voluntary work is provided there.

British Transport Commission (Surveys and Work Studies)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to ensure that full consultation with local trade union branches takes place before work study schemes and works surveys are begun in British Transport Commission establishments.

Mr. Marples: I understand from the British Transport Commission that preliminary surveys and work study

schemes are introduced only after consultation with the appropriate trade union representatives.

Mr. Boyden: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that this thing really works? Is he not aware that before any of these schemes can be successful there must be trade union consultation and (that most trade unionists are reasonable people and if consulted will help to get the schemes established?

Mr. Marples: I am glad to hear that, and I am certain that it is true. I quite agree that work study must be extended on British Railways in co-operation with trade unionists.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Vehicles (Noise)

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is now taking to prevent excessive noise from the engines of all types of vehicles using the roads.

Mr. Hay: We are preparing new regulations based on the British Standard for a method of measurement, which was issued last month; on the proposed British Standard for sound level meters; on the results of tests on the actual noise emitted by vehicles; and the effect of various levels of sound on the hearers. I cannot yet say when the work in this complex field will be completed.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Does my hon. Friend agree that while only a minority of road users make this noise, they should be dealt with severely and as soon as possible?

Mr. Hay: That is exactly why we are pressing on as quickly as we can with the proposed new regulations. I do not, however, want to hold out any hopes that we will be able to act all that quickly, because, as I have said, this is a complex matter.

Exhaust Purifiers

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has made arrangements for the test of the latest United States lorry exhaust purifier; and what plans he has for dealing with this problem in England and Wales.

Mr. Hay: I understand that the United States authorities are urging on American motor manufacturers certain devices to prevent the escape from the crankcase of unburned hydro-carbons which leak past the pistons. It may be that it is these that my hon. Friend has in mind. They do nothing to purify or suppress exhaust fumes, and have in fact been fitted to most petrol engined vehicles manufactured in this country since the nineteen-thirties. It is more difficult to adapt them to diesel engined vehicles, and fewer are so fitted. The police and our technical officers do all they can to enforce the existing law throughout the country; new regulations to prohibit the use of the excess fuel device while vehicles are in motion come into effect on 1st January next.

Trafficators

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the existing practice with regard to the location of trafficator lights on motor vehicles is satisfactory; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Hay: Positional limits for the fitting of trafficators laid down in Regulations are necessarily fairly wide because of the number of different kinds of vehicle to which they are fitted. We have no evidence that manufacturers fit indicators in positions in which they are not adequately visible to other road users.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not that they are not adequately visible? It is that they are very much too visible on occasions. There are many motor cars one meets in London whose trafficator lights are a positive menace and a nuisance, especially on dark and rainy nights? Would my hon. Friend not have a look at the matter to see whether he cannot make recommendations to motor manufacturers about it?

Mr. Hay: I answered my hon. Friend's Question, which referred to the location of trafficator lights and not their brilliance. I will look into the point, but I should add, for the benefit of the House, that we have already done a great deal of work on the subject of the brilliance of trafficator lights and that we hope to announce a decision very soon.

Driving Licences (Eyesight Tests)

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that all persons aged 60 years and over undergo an eyesight test on applying for renewal of a driving licence.

Mr. Hay: At the beginning of every driving test a candidate is asked to read a number plate at a distance of 25 yards; if he cannot do so the test is cancelled. Drivers seeking renewal of their driving licences must declare whether they can read a motor car number plate 25 yards away. Licensing authorities refuse a licence application or revoke an existing licence if they become aware that a driver's eyesight does not reach that standard. I do not think that further legislation is required.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Gypsies

Mr. Dodds: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st December, I shall call attention to the tragic situation of gypsies and other travellers in England and Wales, and move a Resolution.

Civil Defence

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st December, I shall call attention to the failure of Her Majesty's Government, in their Civil Defence plans, to provide for any real protection for the civil population in the event of war, and move a Resolution.

Overseas Information Services

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st December, I shall call attention to the need to increase the effectivenes of the Overseas Information Services, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

ARMY RESERVE

Bill to make further provision with respect to reserves for the regular army, presented by Mr. John Profumo; supported by Mr. Harold Watkinson and Mr. John Hare; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three, of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and Part 11 of the Licensing Act, 1953, being expenses which under any Act are to be provided out of such moneys.

Resolution agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule.—(ACTS CONTINUED.)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 7 and 8.
Some of my hon. Friends and I have tabled this Amendment for the usual reason, so that we may have a discussion on the Bill in Committee when hon. Members can raise a variety of issues. Every year there is usually a discussion of the Home Office policy about aliens, and we think it essential that this tradition should be maintained, because the whole way in which the aliens law is operated makes it all the more necessary for the House of Commons to be vigilant about how the Home Office is exercising its powers.
I do not propose to discuss in detail the general principles underlying the provisions of the law. That subject has been discussed on previous occasions. However, I dare say that many other hon. Members may wish to discuss the general issue during this debate.
One principle which, as I understand it, governs the manner in which the Home Office conducts its affairs is that, if it does not want to, it does not have to give any reasons at all why it has

refused a visa to somebody who wishes to come to this country. Nevertheless, in some cases the Home Office is prepared to give reasons to Members of Parliament who make representations, and is sometimes prepared to give explanations to the House of Commons. I repeat that, under the law, it need give no explanations. I trust that the Government will be able to give us an explanation today of the cases which we shall raise.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here to participate in the debate. This is the main occasion during the year when we discuss the manner in which he exercises his responsibility towards aliens and his personal responsibility for the decisions which are taken. I should have thought that the Home Secretary should have attended the debate, particularly as he has shed some of his responsibilities in the Government's latest reshuffle. I should have thought that one of the reasons why the Prime Minister has carried through a reshuffle—there may be other very good reasons for the changes—was to enable the Home Secretary to give closer attention to the affairs of his own Department and longer explanations of his activities to the House of Commons.
I do not say this out of any disrespect to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State, but the Home Secretary himself ought to have been here, particularly as we shall be discussing decisions for which he is personally responsible. It is very difficult for the Minister of State to explain why the Home Secretary has made decisions. All that the hon. and learned Gentleman can do is merely defend the decisions which have been taken; he cannot respond to the pressures exerted by or proposals made from various parts of the Committee.
It ought to be accepted as regular practice by every Government that the Home Secretary himself should be present when we discuss this Measure each year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Home Secretary?"] We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will come along later. Even so, I think that he should have been here at the beginning of the debate. From what we read in the newspapers, he may have some detailed concern with the efforts to get us into the


Common Market. I do not know what will happen to the aliens law when we get into the Common Market. I imagine that he will have considerable difficulties in working it out. I emphasise that the Home Secretary should always be here on these occasions to explain the decisions in certain cases which he has taken over a period.
I shall refer particularly to cases which concern the long-standing tradition of this country that we should exercise our aliens law in a liberal manner and that people who have political reasons for wishing to come here, on grounds of political asylum or other political reasons, should be allowed to do so. I include people who wish to come to this country or to stay in this country to advocate certain political views. I wish to refer to that principle and the application of it in a few particular cases.
I do not need to argue at length on the issue of principle itself, because the Minister of State, in the debate on 13th June, referring to the case of Captain Galvao—to which I shall return later—stated the principle in terms with which I hope every hon. Member would agree. He thanked me on that occasion for having initiated the debate on Captain Galvao—I hope that I shall get similar thanks from him today—and said:
… it gives me an opportunity to affirm yet again our traditional policy of granting asylum to political refugees and of allowing foreigners who are in this country to express themselves as freely as British subjects may."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1961; Vol. 642, c. 387.]
That is a very good declaration of principle. There are some people who argue that, although we should allow persons to come into this country who may have strange political views, or what some may consider to be strange political views, once they get here we should expect them to keep their mouths shut. I do not believe that that is the principle on which our liberal practice should be based. Therefore, I take my stand on the principle which was initiated at the beginning of the debate on 13th June by the Minister of State, although, later in the debate, he went on to say that, while agreeing to the principle, he was not going to carry it out.
The first case I wish to raise is that of Mr. Ralph Schoenman, who has lived

in this country for a considerable period and has been told by the Home Office that he must clear out. Many representations have been made to the Government to reverse their decision. The Government have not clearly explained why they are taking this action. It cannot be argued that Mr. Schoenman is a burden on public funds, or something of that sort. In any case, I would not regard that as being an excuse for removing a person from the country or for refusing a visa to stay. Nevertheless, that argument cannot be used about him, because he has an occupation in this country, and is earning his own living as an American citizen. It would be perfectly proper for the Government to let him stay.
The suspicion is, of course, that the Government are demanding his removal because he has been engaged in activities connected with nuclear disarmament. That suspicion is bound to remain—I think that it will remain whatever excuses the Government may give—but if it is the real reason for their action, then it is an improper one, and I hope that the Government will listen to representations made in the Committee today and to the others that have been made outside the House of Commons, change their mind and allow Mr. Schoenman to stay.
It so happens that the civil disobedience activities with which he has been occasionally concerned are run by a body with which I disagree, but that makes no difference to the argument. If one looks at the record of Anglo-American relations over the centuries, one sees that many of the freedoms in both countries were built up by people who were exiled from one country to another. Indeed, we probably would not have the Anglo-American alliance today had it not been for Tom Paine, who went to America and stirred up trouble there. The British Government kicked him out when he returned to this country.
If the same principles which the Government are applying to Mr. Schoenman—who has stirred up far less trouble here—had been applied to Tom Paine, then Paine would not have been allowed to stay in the United States—and many people over there thought at the time that he was causing a great deal of trouble. But the views Paine


advocated later became generally accepted as being wise. Indeed, the very term "United States of America" was first invented by him.
Our aliens law should be designed not only to allow people to come here if they have differing views, but designed to tolerate people with the most heretical views, because very often those views prove to be the wisest a little later. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider the question. I do not want to press the argument now, because I hope that the Minister of State will be able to say that the Government have reconsidered the matter and are prepared, in this case, to abide by the best traditions of the country.
I want now to come to the other case, which we raised on 13th June and also at Question Time last Thursday—the case of Captain Galvao. I shall not say a great deal about the manner in which Captain Galvao was treated at London Airport when he came here a week or so ago, except possibly to quote what was written in the leading article of the Guardian on 28th October. This said:
Portugal's much canvassed position as our oldest ally seems still to entitle Dr. Salazar's régime to carefully considerate treatment as far as the British Government is concerned. It was surely gilding the lily a bit to keep Captain Galvao … under 'technical arrest' for five hours at London Airport on Thursday. If Captain Galvao had had it in mind to ask for political asylum or even for permission to make an extended stay one can see that the Government might have had qualms"—
I do not agree with the Guardian on that point, but that is its view—
though in times when we showed less deference to oldest allies or to tyrannical regimes in general we made no bones about taking in political refugees of all sorts.
3.45 p.m.
I would have thought that, whatever the Government's view about the main case for admitting Captain Galvao to this country, they should have taken special precautions to ensure that they treated him with full courtesy when he arrived at London Airport. Last Thursday, the Government's claim that they behaved properly towards him was disproved by what was said by one of my right hon. Friends, who made it clear that the better treatment of Captain Galvao on the second occasion he came here was largely due to the fact that a

Labour Member of Parliament was there to see that he got it.
I want to deal, however, with the more important aspect of Captain Galvao's case—why the Government have refused to allow him to come to this country, why they have refused the visa for which he asked some months ago, and why they persist in their refusal to allow him to come here at present. I shall not recite all the details about Captain Galvao. I mention only, in passing, that the origin of his quarrel with Salazar's Government arose because of his views about Angola.
When Dr. Salazar was originally established in power, Captain Galvao was one of his supporters, but it was Captain Galvao's visit to Angola, just after the war, when he saw the appalling conditions which prevailed, which chiefly prompted him to become a rebel against the Portuguese régime. Following his return to Portugal and his attempt to report to the Portuguese people what was happening in Angola, he was first sentenced to three years' imprisonment and later to sixteen years. His offence was that he tried to tell the Portuguese people what was happening in Angola.
One hon. Member opposite complained last Thursday that Captain Galvao was a pirate and that, when he seized the "Santa Maria", someone was killed. In acts of piracy these things do happen, but if Captain Galvao's report about Angola had been properly heeded by the Portuguese authorities in 1947 and 1948, hundreds of thousands of lives in Angola might have been saved. Therefore, the Government should take into account that here we are dealing with a man who, not merely for a matter of months but for the past fourteen or fifteen years, has been trying to rouse the conscience of the people of Portugal and of the world to the perils in Angola.
Everything Captain Galvao prophesied was proved correct. The horrors did take place and Captain Galvao should at least have the credit of being the man who tried to prevent the terrible things that have occurred. I thought that that would have weighed with Her Majesty's Government. But no. The Government said, "We are not going to give him a visa." When Captain Galvao escaped from prison in Lisbon he got sanctuary in the Argentine Embassy and


he has been given sanctuary by the Argentine Government, permitted to stay in Brazil, permitted to go to Sweden to give lectures there, and permitted to go to Norway.
So we have a situation in which the British Government refuse to take towards Captain Galvao the kind of liberal attitude which is taken by Norway and Sweden—perhaps we would expect Norway and Sweden to be in the highest tradition in these matters—and the Argentine. I am sorry to see the British Government acting in a manner which does not measure up even to the liberal principles of the Argentinian Government. But that is the situation and the Government must answer for it. Why is it that the British Government refuse to take towards Captain Galvao the attitude taken by the Argentinian Government, the Brazilian Government, the Norwegian Government and the Swedish Government?
What are the Government's excuses? In his various speeches, the Minister of State has used different terms to describe the dangers which he thinks will arise from Captain Galvao's coming to this country. He first said that we must not allow him to come here because he was asking to deliver lectures here. I do not see how anybody can object to someone coming here to deliver lectures. He went on to say that some of those lectures might be inflammatory—adding to his objection—and, furthermore, when he was properly incited about the case, he said that Captain Galvao's purpose in coming here was to advocate insurrection. Apparently that is the Government's main ground for their refusal to allow Captain Galvao to come here.
It is extremely difficult for any Portuguese citizen who believes in freedom to do anything other than advocate insurrection. There has just been an election in Portugal, in which opposition candidates were not able to stand and were not allowed to issue statements of their case. What is the citizen of Portugal to do? The only proper course for him is to advocate insurrection. He is allowed to go to the Argentine and to give lectures in Sweden and Norway, but in Britain, apparently, it would be too dangerous.
That is a denial of this country's whole tradition in this respect. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here, as I said, because I would have liked to have asked him what course he would recommend to a Portuguese citizen who disagreed with the policy of his own Government. There is no democratic method by which he could make his protest. There is no democratic method by which he could rouse feeling against what is happening in Angola. What ought he to do?
I wanted to ask the Home Secretary, in particular, because we are told in the newspapers—we have not always seen it in practice—that he is different from what he used to be. I would not have asked what he would recommend about such a question before the war, when he was the rising hope of the pliable, appeasing Tories. But now he has shed that mantle on to the shoulders of the Leader of the House. We would not expect the pre-war Home Secretary to have had any answer about what he would recommend to people who believed in freedom and who were living in a dictatorship.
But we now have a new, bold, adventurous, modern, up-to-date Home Secretary who is eager to bury his Munich past, and I ask him what he would recommend. What does he think the citizen of Portugal ought to do? Should he be content to leave the situation and say that it is nothing to do with him, or should he not try to rouse other peoples in other parts of the world to recognise what is happening in Portugal, and, if in other parts of the world, why not in this country? Why is it that we are not prepared to permit a man, now regarded in Portugal as one of the bravest fighters for freedom, to set foot on British soil?
There are other aspects of the matter. What is happening in Angola affects policy throughout the whole of Africa. In all parts of Africa there is deep concern about what is happening in Angola. What does the Home Office believe will be the effect in other parts of Africa of the announcement that Captain Galvao, who had dome his best to prevent the catastrophe in Angola and who is regarded by the people in Angola as one of their foremost champions, is to be excluded from our shores?
The people in those other parts of Africa will say what is the truth—that the Government are crawling to the Portuguese Government. That belief is confirmed by the admissions which the Home Office has had to make, showing that the whole of this decision about Captain Galvao has been governed by its conversations with the Foreign Office. It is a very serious matter when the Home Office is supposed to take all the responsibility for these exclusions but when the decisions are made by the Foreign Office.
I ask the Home Office to tell us how many other people have been excluded from this country when the decision has been taken on the recommendation of the Foreign Office. There is no doubt about it in the case of Captain Galvao, for the Minister has admitted more than once that the Home Secretary asked the Foreign Office what it thought about Captain Galvao's admission. Because the Foreign Office said that it would not like it, the Home Office agreed.
Instead of the Home Office sustaining the traditions of freedom which it is supposed to sustain, decisions have been made in the assumed interests of foreign policy. That is outrageous. This country should be honoured to have Captain Galvao coming to these shores, and I hope that the Home Office will reconsider the whole question and try to wipe out this stain by issuing, as soon as possible, an invitation to Captain Galvao to come here.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) dealt with two specific cases for most of his speech. I should like to deal rather more generally with the question of the Aliens Order and the legislation under which it has been made in the past.
The Minister of State knows that we have had these debates as an annual event, in which he and I have taken part, for some time. I assure him that we do not consider them an annual formality and that we still feel as strongly as ever that the way in which the Aliens Order is handled by the House of Commons is entirely wrong. We do not accept the form by which an Order is made which Parliament itself has never considered

and which we have never had the opportunity of criticising and which Parliament has never passed. We hope that an opportunity will be taken to get rid of this procedure. Without trespassing on tomorrow's debate, it seems to me that the arrival of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill will put the Government into a ridiculous situation. I shall refer to that later.
Before coming to such contentious matters, I think that my hon. Friends would like me to tell the Minister of State that we have always found him very helpful and courteous in dealing with individual cases which we have brought to his attention. We would like to thank him and his officials in the Home Office. Having often criticised the procedure under which they work, I should like to say that I have the highest regard for the efficiency and courtesy of the officers of the Immigration Service who have to operate this procedure for which they are not responsible and who, like the Customs officers, who have an equally cumbersome and, I believe, unnecessary job, do it with courtesy, efficiency and tact.
It may not be inappropriate to say a few words about the many thousands of aliens—the Minister of State will later tell us how many thousands—who permanently live in this country and make a major contribution to the business, science, learning and arts of the United Kingdom. Many of them are playing a notable part in our national life, and many thousands of others are doing jobs which we find it difficult to get United Kingdom citizens to do.
The Minister knows that the legislation operated by the Ministry of Labour admits to work in this country aliens to do jobs for which British citizens cannot be found. Indeed, there are many activities in this country—agriculture, forestry and many others—which would find themselves in great difficulty if a large number of aliens and other people from overseas were not coming in to do those jobs.
My hon. Friend referred briefly to what will happen when this country joins the Common Market. No doubt the Minister noted carefully a remark of the Prime Minister in his speech at


the Mansion House on Monday night. Referring to the negotiations, he said:
We do not yet know whether these will succeed. I trust that they will; I believe that they must.
The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends appear to be assuming that very shortly the negotiations will be successfully concluded and that we shall be moving into the Common Market.
The Minister knows that one of the conditions of the Rome Treaty is that it aims ultimately at the complete mobility of labour, and that the first phase, which might end in 1968 as far as we are concerned, appears to require arrangements not very different from our own, but when that phase has ended citizens of the Common Market countries will be entitled to come here freely to seek jobs and work on a reciprocal basis.
That is one of the ways in which our entry into the Common Market will make nonsense of the present legislation. Therefore, we ask ourselves why the Minister is asking the House of Commons to perpetuate this antiquated legislation at a time when it is quite plain that very shortly it will have to be changed?
What consideration is being given in the Minister's Department, as it must be along with other Government Departments, to the effect on our aliens legislation of Britain's entry into the Common Market? What provision will be made in the Aliens Order which will be introduced under the Act of Parliament which we are now extending—if the House agrees to extend it—to deal with the effect of our entry into the Common Market? It seems clear to us that a large part of the present arrangements will have to be scrapped in respect of those countries of Europe with whom we are about to associate ourselves.
In all these debates my right hon. and hon. Friends have made specific complaints about the red tape and bureaucracy which are applied at ports and airports in the United Kingdom, and the way in which they compare increasingly badly with the formalities in foreign countries, particularly those of Western Europe.
Last year reference was made to the sheer volume of visitors to the United Kingdom which was causing grave bottlenecks at London Airport, at Dover, and at other points of entry. As the Minister knows, the volume of these visitors is constantly growing, and if he has been again, as he told us last year he had recently been, to specific points of entry, and if he has travelled in Western Europe lately, he will have noticed that the gap between the speed and efficiency with which visitors are handled, for example, at the new French airport of Orly, or in Western Germany, Switzerland, or Italy, compared with the speed and efficiency of the arrangements here, has rapidly widened during the last year.
What new proposals has the Minister in mind to simplify our antiquated procedure? Has he at last been persuaded to standardise the procedure, and to standardise embarkation and landing cards which aliens are required to fill in, at least with the other countries of Western Europe with whom we are to be associated very soon? Has he finally decided that some of these forms can be dispensed with altogether?
I want to ask the Minister one or two specific questions about which I have given him notice. Can he say how many aliens are now in this country on a permanent basis, that is to say, those who are now exempt from the requirement to notify the police when they change their place of residence? How many came in during the past year? What are the figures for entry and departure? Incidentally, can he say what the effect has been of the admission of the selected people whom we allowed to come in as a special concession as a result of World Refugee Year? In the debate last year he said that we were to admit over 1,000 of the so-called hard core cases. What difficulties, if any, have resulted from their admission? How many of them are living at the expense of the taxpayer, on National Assistance, and so on? How easy have these people found it to integrate themselves into the normal life of this country?
On another subject, can he say what extension there has been of arrangements for passport-free travel on a bilateral basis with other countries, and whether any progress has been made in the abolition of the requirement of visas for


visitors coming to this country? Can he also say how many aliens have been deported from this country since our last debate on this subject? He will remember that last year he gave us some figures.
Also, can he tell us the effect of the new exemption from the requirement to register with the police which he announced last year and which was incorporated in the Aliens Order which came into effect on 1st January? Have there been difficulties? Have there been complaints from the police or other authorities, or has that exemption worked smoothly?
Turning to a minor point, what arrangements have been made to make it easier for aliens coming to this country on a temporary basis—by which I mean visitors and tourists—and bringing their motor cars? How far has the procedure been simplified during the last twelve months?
In that context, may I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has considered, and if not, whether he will now consider, the possibility that we might extend the system of travelling immigration officers? He is aware that if one goes by train from London to Paris the immigration formalities in the United Kingdom take place at Dover and involve the passengers standing in a long queue. In France, these formalities are conducted on the train.
At the end of the last Recess, while travelling from Boulogne to Dover on the car ferry, I was interested to note that although the Customs formalities were conducted in Dover, the immigration formalities were being conducted by one of the Minister's officials on the ship. If this can be done on the car ferry, if the immigration officer can, in that case, be on the means of locomotion, why cannot that be extended, and, instead of the immigration officers dealing with long queues in Dover, travel on the train to Victoria and conduct their business there? The Minister may say that this would create an awkward situation for visitors or other people whom the immigration officers decided, between Dover and London, they wanted to deport.
Some arrangements might have to be made at Victoria to detain those people and send them back on the next train, but the inconvenience would be caused not to the Minister or to his Department

or his officers, but to the aliens who were trying to get into this country in some way which was not thought to be right, and it would be a great convenience to the general public if there could be an extension of this system.
I want to refer to another question which, looking carefully at last year's debate and what was said by one of my hon. Friends and by the then Temporary Chairman, I would have thought was in order, namely, the question of naturalisation procedure. I want to refer to it briefly because I believe it to be relevant to the debate, since naturalisation touches upon the question who is and who is not an alien and, therefore, who is and who is not affected by the procedure laid down in the Bill.
There are large numbers of refugees and other permanent residents in this country—including some Poles living in my constituency and people of other nationalities living elsewhere—who have been here for many years, who propose to remain here, and who would like to become naturalised, but who tell me that the procedure is long, cumbersome and very expensive. They would like to see it made shorter, cheaper and easier. Will the Minister say a word about that question?

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we cannot discuss naturalisation, which comes under another Act altogether.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I accept your Ruling, Sir Gordon, but it seems to me that the question of who is and who is not affected by the Aliens Order is very material to this debate. It has been traditional, over a number of years, for this debate to range fairly widely. Last year, the Minister of State made a speech a large part of which was about World Refugee Year. Matters more or less affecting aliens legislation and the Aliens Order have been discussed in these debates in the past.

The Chairman: I agree that the debate has been wide on this Order, but I do not think that we can discuss another matter altogether.

Mr. Gordon Walker: With respect, Sir Gordon, we are discussing aliens, and only aliens can become naturalised. Therefore, the question of naturalisation must overlap with


this, because someone who becomes naturalised goes outside the scope of the Act which we are renewing, whereas someone who fails to become naturalised remains within its scope. A person's failure to become naturalised means that he is within the category that we are now discussing. I therefore submit that my hon. Friend is in order.

The Chairman: We are discussing the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, and Amendments to that Act.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The point made by my right hon. Friend is the point that I was trying to make. Many of the Polish people in my constituency would like to be relieved of the provisions of the Aliens Order which would be introduced on 1st January if the House approves what we are now discussing. They would like to be relieved by becoming British subjects, but they find it difficult, slow and expensive.
Whatever view the Minister of State, or you, Sir Gordon, may take about the introduction of this matter into the debate, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will look into it and, if he cannot reply this afternoon, will find some other way of doing so, because it affects many people and it would be in everybody's interest if those people who live and work permanently in this country, and who wish to become British subjects—and if there is no objection to their doing so—could do so more easily.
Since the year before last, when I spoke in the debate, I have had correspondence about these Orders with the Minister of State. I have sometimes sought to persuade him that in the past there have been unreasonable anomalies between our aliens legislation and our treatment of people from the Commonwealth. I was doing that while in no way seeking to diminish the rights of Commonwealth citizens. The Minister of State's replies have always been in the same vein, and I want to quote two typical examples.
In Jannuary, 1960, he wrote to me explaining why it was that the provisions applying to Commonwealth citizens could not be applied to aliens. He said:
Commonwealth citizens are free from all immigration control not because they have been exempted from the Aliens Order by

administrative decision, but because they are not aliens at all and enjoy an entirely different status in the law and tradition of the United Kingdom. They are British subjects and belong to the Commonwealth, and their free right of entry to this country is one of the ties that help to bind the Commonwealth together.
Last January, in another letter, again in connection with the Bill that we are now discussing, the hon. and learned Gentleman wrote:
The fact that we maintain an open door to all British subjects, regardless of race or colour, derives from our unique position as the centre of a multi-racial Commonwealth.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made a number of other points which, if I am fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye tomorrow, it might be relevant for me to raise then.
4.15 p.m.
The point that I am now trying to make is that, as far as I can see, if legislation which is now pending is accepted by the House the distinction will disappear. It will not disappear in the way that I urged on the House and on the Minister of State, by the liberalisation of the aliens legislation, but by extending the narrow and restrictive practices of the aliens legislation to all overseas people—Commonwealth citizens and aliens alike. That is something that we very much deplore.

The Chairman: That question would be more appropriate to tomorrow's debate.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If I am fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye then, I shall hope to elaborate that point. The point I am now making is that the distinction between Commonwealth citizens and aliens, about which the Minister of State has spoken with such pride in recent debates, now seems to be disappearing, which is an additional reason for reconsidering what we are being asked to do this afternoon.
I conclude by reminding the House of the end of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the new Leader of the House. He finished with some remarks about the difference between the two parties—about the policies advocated by my hon. Friends and myself being about equality whereas the policies advocated by the Conservatives were about opportunity. On this matter our policy is


about treating human beings like human beings, wherever they come from and whatever the colour of their skin, whereas Conservative policy, as embodied in successive Aliens Orders and as expressed by the speeches of hon. Members opposite, seems to be about short-sighted, reactionary, and restrictive bureaucracy, insularity, narrow nationalism, and "red tape".
For those reasons I hope that the Committee will support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I feel that I should be slightly cautious about entering this debate, because I know that hon. Members who have taken part in these debates over many years form rather a select band. It may be incautious for a newcomer to enter the debate, and I do so only to make a relatively narrow point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) is a frequent speaker in these debates. It is not in his capacity as a past tutor of the Leader of the House that I wish to follow him, but because I think it does no harm for somebody on these benches to say, this afternoon, that this sort of temporary legislation for the control of aliens is bad constitutional practice. That has been said very often by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton, and there is no harm in my saying it once more this afternoon.
Bad constitutional practices often get Governments into messes, and that is the situation in this case. Tomorrow, we are to be invited to consider a new Bill, which I believe to be necessary but which will have the effect, if passed in its present form, of controlling aliens by means of an annually renewable Bill and Commonwealth citizens by means of a Bill of five years' duration. It seems indefensible that the period for aliens should be one year and for Commonwealth citizens five years. For this reason the Government must consider for the first time the necessity for introducing permanent legislation in respect of aliens.
I appreciate that the present situation is a new one, in respect of which a Government cannot be expected immediately to produce legislation, because of the many changes which are taking place—

not least those referred to by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) in regard to the Common Market. This I see, but I think that, because this is bad constitutional practice, it would be only right for my hon. and learned Friend, when replying for the Government, to say that it is their intention not just to prevaricate over any issue. When the European situation has been cleared up the Government should undertake to bring forward permanent legislation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: If the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) is claiming the privilege of a maiden speaker in this annual enterprise of ours, I am very happy to pay him the compliments which maiden speakers always deserve. I do it with the greatest sincerity, as the principal point he advanced is the point which I have always considered to be the main point of principle which we ought to examine.
After all, although the debate has always been allowed to be a wide-ranging administrative debate, it does not really arise in that way. It arises only on the narrow question whether Section I of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, should be continued for a further twelve months. On that peg we hang administrative discussions and particular questions. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that the principal anomaly about which the House should be concerned in this matter is the continuance of this emergency legislation for one year at a time, annually, for now almost forty-five years, with no end of it in sight.
In 1919, this was intended to be an emergency power to deal with an emergency situation following the First World War. I think that the House would never have been content to give to one Minister of the Crown the absolute power which he has under this legislation had it contemplated that it would go on from year to year for half a century. The House did not think of it in those terms at all. It thought of dealing with an emergency situation by giving the Home Secretary an absolute discretionary power, for which ultimately he was responsible to Parliament, but for a period designed to deal with that emergency.
When it continued from year to year for three or four years the House was prepared to tolerate that. But when an emergency situation, following the end of the First World War, is still regarded as an emergency situation to be dealt with on an emergency basis sixteen years after the conclusion of the Second World War, I think that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in saying that surely the time has come when this legislation ought to be put upon a permanent basis.
I admit, and I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will probably make this point, that the situation in this respect is not as bad as it was a few years ago, because then we did not have the benefit of the Order in Council which set out a number of detailed provisions such as might or might not be incorporated during the Committee stage of the Bill. But that does not alter the question of principle and I ask whether the time has not come when the House should be given an opportunity of adopting a code for the admission, permission to remain, and deportation of aliens on a more permanent basis?
This view is reinforced by what both of my hon. Friends have said about the Bill which we are to discuss tomorrow. I have no intention whatever of attempting to discuss that Bill now. But it is relevant to point out that the Government themselves say that the principles which they now propose to apply to the admission of British citizens into this country are largely those which we are now applying to the admission of aliens. In this case—rightly, I am not complaining of it—we are to do it by legislation. There will be a Committee stage. I am thankful to acknowledge that the Committee stage will take place on the Floor of the House, so that we may all look at this and try to introduce safeguards, alterations, and modifications such as we should like to introduce, had we the power, into similar legislation dealing with the admission of aliens into this country.
We are doing this in the Bill to be discussed tomorrow on the basis of legislation. We can deal with questions like the right of appeal; the right of publicity; the right of representation; the right of consultation with witnesses and the right

to call evidence in cases where permission to land is refused or, and more important, in cases where deportation is recommended. We can do all that in Committee on the Bill which will be before us tomorrow. Surely the time has come when we ought to have the opportunity to deal with that on the Floor of the House in the case of aliens.
Let me say a word or two about the situation as it is now. One of the most important matters resulting from giving the Home Secretary these arbitrary powers is the effect on what has always been one of the proudest boasts of Great Britain—our liberal attitude to the problem of political asylum. By this legislation no one in this country, except the Home Secretary himself, has any power to influence or control decisions about political asylum which surely everyone would admit is fundamental to questions of freedom and democratic liberty.
It is true that the Home Secretary assumes responsibility. If we get the opportunity, we can raise such matters on Adjournment debates, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) in the case of Captain Galvao. We can put down Parliamentary Questions and get Answers, so long as Mr. Speaker thinks that we are not interfering too greatly with the rights of other hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper. Once a year we have the opportunity which is presented to us today. But they are ex post facto rights. By the time we have the opportunity to exercise them the question has been decided, and in most cases the person involved is no longer here. Surely we ought to have more than that. Surely in a case such as that of Mr. Schoenman, or Captain Galvao, there ought to be a right of appeal, some third-party judgment.
They have it in the United States of America. There is no Minister there who has the completely arbitrary powers which the Home Secretary has in these matters. If a man is refused admission, he can appeal and call evidence and make the Government state the reasons for the refusal of permission. Why, in this country, should not rights no less than those be exercisable? How unfortunate it is in these circumstances if this power is not exercised liberally.
4.30 p.m.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), who paid a compliment to the Minister which I should like to endorse. It is certainly true that if any of us in the House of Commons has a personal case in which we are interested we have the sympathy of the Minister in looking at it. We do not always agree with his decision—very often I do not—nevertheless, we acknowledge his courtesy and sympathy and his worth in looking into a matter and explaining what has happened.
But that is not enough. There must be many cases which no Member of Parliament ever hears of so that there is never any personal representation. It must be remembered that this is a matter which the House of Commons entrusted to the personal discretion of the Home Secretary of the day and not to the discretion of the Minister of State. Under the law it was the Home Secretary who decided that Mr. Schoenman should not remain here for another twelve months. It was by the Home Secretary's personal decision that Captain Galvao—who did not want to come here at all at the relevant time, but was in transit to Sweden; his plane came here and he had to wait a few hours before he could get his next plane and did not want to leave the airport—should be kept under lock and key in circumstances of the greatest indignity while he was waiting.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we make nonsense of the responsibility of Parliament if the Minister who is responsible is not here to tell us what happened and why. The Minister of State will do his best, but, assuming that the law has been properly carried out, he will be giving us only hearsay evidence. Only the Home Secretary knows what happened. He personally decides. That, at any rate, is the fiction which we are asked to accept because this is what is laid down by the law.
It is very difficulty to justify what was done in either of these two cases. There is an antithesis between them. Mr. Schoenman was not allowed to remain here because he believed in non-violent resistance. Captain Galvao was not allowed to enter because he believed in violent resistance. I suppose that the only people whom the Home Secretary

will admit are those who do not believe in any resistance at all, the apathetic upon whom the fortunes of the Government depend, those who do not care, those who do not know, those who accept no responsibilities and no obligations, those who are prepared to risk nothing and those who believe nothing which seems important enough to them to take action about it.
All these harmless, nameless people the Home Secretary will let in, but if one believes something about the threat of mass human suicide or extermination one is an undesirable alien and asylum cannot be granted to him. He cannot even be allowed to remain free in the lounge of London Airport, waiting for an aeroplane to take him somewhere else.
This is not in accordance with our traditions. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not. In the mid-nineteenth century, when so many European nations were struggling for some kind of liberty, a great deal was said about the unity of Germany and of Italy. Today, no one threatens the unity of Italy. Where would the unity of Italy have been if the Home Secretary of that time had taken the same attitude to Garibaldi that the present Home Secretary takes to Captain Galvao? In the dangers, uncertainties and insecurities of our time political asylum has become a complete mockery. It is little more than an instrument in the cold war.
If Captain Galvao, instead of being a Portuguese rebelling against the murderous tyranny of a Portuguese Government, had been a Hungarian exile who had taken his part with his comrades in the Hungarian revolt a few years ago, he would have been welcomed with open arms. I am not saying that he should not have been—of course he should—but, if we make discriminations on political lines so that we admit to political asylum those with whom we agree, and exclude those with whom we do not agree, that is not the exercise of political asylum as we have always understood it. One great glory of British freedom will have been sacrificed for no advantage of any kind.
These things need explanation; they need justification. If Captain Galvao was refused permission for some other reason—some more respectable reason, if


it exists—I am sure that the Home Secretary would come to the House of Commons this afternoon and tell us what it was. In the case of Mr. Schoenman I suppose that this argument might apply. He might say that if one is an alien and allowed to come into this country one should not make a deliberate practice of disobeying its laws. A case might be made for saying that the position is quite different in that respect between British citizens who refuse to comply with the laws for a certain political purpose and aliens who refuse to do so.
I think that that would be a very dubious proposition and I would not agree with it, yet I could see that at least an arguable case could be made for such a proposition. But the Home Secretary does not make it. He tells us that this is not his reason for not allowing Mr. Schoenman to stay. If it were his reason we could debate it, we could examine it and at least there would be something to be said for it, but apparently the Home Secretary does not think there is anything to be said for it. He does not think that that is a sufficient explanation. He does not think that would be a justifiable ground, so he assures us in all solemnity that it had nothing whatever to do with it. If it had nothing whatever Ito do with it, what on earth had? Are we not entitled to know?
After all, Mr. Schoenman was asking very little. He had been here for many years, and he not only assisted Earl Russell in his political or rebellious activities. Earl Russell happens, I suppose, to be one of the most distinguished philosophers in the world who is engaged upon his own work at times when his public conscience does not lead him to take part in other activities for other purposes. Mr. Schoenman is his personal secretary. They are engaged together now on work, quite apart from all these more questionable matters, in which Earl Russell needs this man's assistance. He is not easily replaceable. The work will be finished shortly. He was asking for one year's extension; nothing more.
If the Home Secretary thinks that the activities of those of us who want to see an end to nuclear insanity will be significantly reduced by the lack of assistance

from Mr. Schoenman, he should perhaps think again. Mr. Schoenman's presence will not add much to it and his absence will not take much away from it. If the Home Secretary thinks that his connection with it is irrelevant, then his refusal of permission to stay becomes inexplicable and is certainly unexplained.
I conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning. Let us re-examine these things. Let us have a Bill to put these matters on a firm basis. Let us introduce into that Bill a right of appeal and a right for a man to make his own case, in public if he likes, for admission or for not being thrown out, or against whatever it is that is being threatened. Let us relieve the Home Secretary of what must be a very burdensome and difficult responsibility. Let him make his decisions in the first place but, like all other decisions where human liberty is concerned, let them be referable from the arbitrary decision of one man in secret to a public tribunal in accordance with the public law of the land.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise so that it should not be thought that some of the views expressed in the course of the debate represent those of the Committee. I feel certain that I am speaking not only for my hon. Friends, but for the vast majority of hon. Members opposite when I say that a great many, although not all, of the things which have been said in the debate are contrary to the wishes of the Committee.
I am aware, as is every hon. Member, of the great responsibility which is placed upon the Home Secretary in respect of the admission or refusal of admission of aliens, but he must accept that responsibility, and I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who debated the Committee stage of an imaginary Bill to put this provision upon a permanent basis, moving his Amendments in Committee and giving answers to some of them. If there were the Committee stage of such a Bill and he were to move those Amendments, I should most certainly disagree with them.
The decision whether to admit an alien is not one which can possibly be debated in public before a tribunal, with evidence being given. A great deal of the information is secret. A great


deal of the information is private. The matter must be left to the Home Secretary, as it is under the Act of 1919, which we renew every year.
As some hon. Members have said, it was an Act introduced in a condition of emergency. Unfortunately, the emergency has continued ever since, sometimes a little better, sometimes a little worse. We have a great many aliens in this country, and there are a great many others w ho seek to enter the country. The vast majority of aliens who come here do so for a short time on a holiday. They are welcome and every facility should be given to them to come here. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) that the facilities for checking them should be improved, as they have been in many Continental countries. He mentioned various ways in which that should be done, and I am in entire agreement with him.
The hon. Member told us of difficulties with the immigration authorities. I hope that he had better luck with his car in the Customs, because the delays at Dover in that respect are a scandal to the administration of this country, when people of whatever nationality endeavour to come to this country or to return to it. He did not tell us about that.
We have a vast number of aliens here. The great majority of them do very useful work, and we are very pleased to see them, but let us not forget that a very small proportion of them are undesirables and in many cases have been the subject of deportation recommendations made by courts of law. They cannot be returned to their own country because that country is on the other side of the Iron Curtain, and we have to retain them here. We have to be very careful not to allow this sort of person into the country. Once such people are here, if they are undesirables we cannot dispose of than, and they form an undesirable part of the country's population.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on a question of law with great diffidence, but when I had to administer this law I was never given the advice that any alien was in the position which the

hon. and learned Gentleman has just described. When they are here they are liable to deportation not necessarily on the order of the courts, but because the Home Secretary makes an order to deport them.

Mr. Doughty: I was referring to deportation orders made by the courts.

Mr. S. Silverman: They are not enforceable.

Mr. Doughty: The point is that they cannot be returned to their country. They cannot be returned to the country from which they came and of which they are subjects. They represent a small minority.

Mr. Ede: This is an important point. I have known American citizens in this country who were the subject of a deportation order made by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, now Lord Chancellor. The United States decided that it did not want them. It managed to persuade Czechoslovakia that they could go there. As far as I know, they were not delivered by steamer to Czechoslovakia, but the position was that if they could get there they were permitted to go, and, in fact, they did go.

Mr. Doughty: They may have gone, but in many cases they cannot be deported. First, there is an argument as to which nationality they have. No country will take them. Even if the Home Secretary satisfies himself about the country from which they come, and even if that country recognises them as citizens, there are certain countries, such as those behind the Iron Curtain, to which they cannot be deported. We therefore have to take great care, when we admit aliens, to ensure that if they turn out to be undesirable it will be possible to deport them.
We have many people of nationalities living here. The vast majority are good citizens. I am entirely in favour of the right of asylum, which goes back to the Huguenot days and the days after the French Revolution. Aliens came here because their own country was not safe for them. It was called political asylum. But let us not extend it too far. Let us not forget that many of the ordinary criminals whose extradition is sought by other countries claim that they are here as political refugees.
In many cases that is wrong. It is one of the excuses which they use to show why they should not be extradited. Nor can it be said that in each case in which a person is a political refugee, automatically he is entitled to asylum in this country. I do not agree with that. I do not support the idea that our liberty and very fair administration should be extended so far.
Two hon. Members referred to two cases. So far, what they have said has been uncontradicted. I propose to contradict them now, because I do not wish it to be thought that the House of Commons leaves such statements uncontradicted. One case was that of Mr. Schoenman, who is secretary to Lord Russell. He is an alien. He is taking part in political movements in this country. Whether these movements be right or whether they be wrong is not a question which concerns us. Aliens must not take part in movements of that kind in this country. If they do, they render themselves liable to deportation.
The second case was that of Captain Galvao. Whatever his views about the Government of Portugal, the Government of Spain, the Government of this country, or the Government of any other country may be, he is a pirate who has committed murder and grievous bodily harm.

Mr. S. Silverman: So have the Portuguese Government committed murder.

Mr. Doughty: If the hon. Member wishes to interrupt me, especially if he wishes me to give way, he should not sit on his very small backside.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged. I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman for being provoked into a sedentary interruption.
It may or may not be true that Captain Galvao has some personal responsibility for the one solitary death which took place on the liner which he took. He may have. If so, so much the worse. It was all part of an activity designed to bring to an end a policy of genocide conducted by the Portuguese Government in Angola. How can the hon. and learned Gentleman be so indignant about one murder and so utterly acquies-

cent in the murders Captain Galvao was trying to prevent?

Mr. Doughty: If I were to indulge with the hon. Gentleman in a debate upon the conditions in Angola or Portugal, I should be hopelessly out of order. I merely say that I entirely disagree with his insinuations and the facts which he has stated. That is why I rose to my feet earlier, so that it should not be thought that the views expressed in the debate were those of the House of Commons.
On many occasions people disagree with the views of the Government of their country. Hon. Members opposite frequently do. That is what they are here for. But if they were to seize one of our liners, murder its captain and put its crew in peril, as a result of which an innocent member of the crew suffered grievous bodily harm, would they expect to escape the laws of this country because they said that they did not approve of the laws or conduct of the Government of this country? Of course not. Yet when this gentleman, if that is the correct description to apply to him, arrives in this country and is treated in the very proper way in which he was, there is indignation on the part of those who apparently support his action.
What would have happened if he had been allowed to enter this country and the Portuguese Government had demanded his extradition for murder or piracy? Could that request have been resisted? Could we possibly not have returned him? It would have caused difficulties and troubles. I am sorry that he saw fit to come to this country, where he certainly is not wanted, and I hope that he will never try to do so again.
I repeat, and make no apology for repeating, that I am in favour of asylum being granted in proper cases. I am delighted to see visitors here. I am delighted to see many foreign people living in this country as good citizens. During the war I saw many Poles—Air Force, Navy and Army—and their courage and the assistance they gave to this country were second to none. But I do not want this hospitality abused and our country made the dumping ground for those we do not want and whose countries are too hot to hold them. I hope that the Measure and the proper regulation of aliens will be continued.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon and learned Member for Surrey East, (Mr. Doughty) said that he rose to make it clear to the Committee that he disagreed with the previous speakers. Most of us think that that was an act of supererogation. It seemed abundantly obvious to start with.
I turned up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate of two years ago, partly because I was not here last time—I think that I was in hospital—and partly because I always like to check my memory and find out what I said on a previous occasion. I think that the position was stated by the hon. Member for Charlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) in a single sentence with some clarity. I quote him from memory. I probably quote him inaccurately. I apologise if I do.
The gist of what the hon. Member said was that in a free society where we enjoy security it is an unhappy position that there should be a section under a dictatorship. I do not think that "dictatorship" was the word he used. I am not trying to misrepresent him. That was the sense of it. I am sure that he would concede, perhaps even more readily than I, that these powers are normally not exercised with brutality. The Home Office is thoughtful and considerate. It is the fear of the unknown that is always the gravest fear—the lack of understanding of the law, of the situation, or of the powers. It is the insecurity, accompanied by the fear under which people have to live so long as we have this legislation.
The Minister of State is an astonishingly pleasant fellow for a Tory, but he will rise and talk like the Daily Herald, or rather like Mr. Harold Hutchinson, of the Daily Herald, who was writing the other day. Mr. Hutchinson divides politicians into those who are dominated by emotion and those who are dominated by reason. This is surely the basic theory of Stalinism. Is love a fact, or is it an emotion? Am I to go to Oldham and say to my constituents, "You say you love your missus, but this is a bourgeois emotion. She is just a tax rebate"? [Laughter.] Surely this is true. On this theory all the things we are talking about are emotions, are they not? We are talking about the right of asylum. It is an emotional concept. Much of our Constitution is an emotional concept.

The right of asylum was a thing that mattered.
When the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East talks about "undesirable aliens", by which he means foreigners he does not like, we recall the great days—the remarkable days—when the liberalism of Britain in this conception evoked the admiration of the world. One of the comments I have about recent events in Trafalgar Square, which may seem irrelevant, but it is relevant to this, is that the one thing which came out of Trafalgar Square was the admiration evoked all over Western Europe by the tolerance of both sides. We do not happen to live in France, where the police are getting a bit snaphappy with machine-guns and serious things have been happening. But Algeria is in the Common Market, too, and it may well be that we shall have a problem to consider in this respect.
Apparently, I am to say that an individual is a dot, a statistic, and that the members of the Cabinet are individually dots and collectively dotty. It is the James Jeans conception of dots living on dots, innumerable dots, worlds as many as the grains of sand on all the seashores. On that conception the right of asylum is an emotion; the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Human Rights are scraps of paper; Picasso's doves are a couple of lumps of pigment on a canvas and Christianity is the Dead Sea scrolls. This is it. Of course it is!
If hon. Members go to the streets of Oldham they may find people who want to blow bubbles. They may find that people are worried. They may find that chauvinism is an emotion. But in every back street and in every main street there hon. Members will find people who are preaching the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God and who are not concerned to support the hon. and learned Member's definition of "undesirable aliens".
In the days to which I have referred Lenin was reading in the British Museum. The Tchaikovskyite philosopher anarchists produced ladies who followed the policies of Maria Breshkovskaia and Sophia Petrovskaya, and who were received here almost as honoured guests, and they were a bit bomb-happy. They had their philosophy about it. The


philosophy they preached was that to throw bombs was a crime, but in the circumstances it was necessary and they got to atone for it. This was in the days when Russia was ruled by a near relative of our own Royal Family, but these people were received here.
One of my hon. Friends referred to Munich. We must never forget that in the period of Munich refugees were seeking life. It was not merely liberty. Refugees came here who were fleeing from the fear of persecution and from the fear of the gas chamber. They were deported by our stipendiary magistrates, but the stipendiary magistrates were not responsible for it. They were administering the law that Parliament had made and they were administering the Statute we are now discussing. People were sent back to perish and die.
But that is not the end of it, for it happens even now. There may be people coming here from the tyranny of Ghana, who are Commonwealth citizens—although they are probably more likely to go to Nigeria and I fancy that they do. We must realise that tyranny exists even now in the Commonwealth. It should be remembered that it is an offence even now for a Commonwealth citizen of Ghana coming to this country to speak evil of the dictatorship in Ghana.

5.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): I am sorry to have to stop the hon. Member, but he must not anticipate the debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, which will be forthcoming tomorrow. We must confine ourselves to aliens in this debate.

Mr. Hale: Thank you, Sir Harry, but I have no desire to pursue the point further. I am merely saying that, after all, we are talking about the situation in the next twelve months if this Bill is passed. That period of time will be affected if the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill is passed, but I hope that the attitude of my hon. Friends will hold it up.
We are, therefore, discussing a situation today in which we are to renew this Bill for a further twelve months, to be followed by a statutory Order. We are thus discussing a situation in which

we must assume that this will be the law for the next twelve months. Tomorrow's debate is, at the moment, hypothetical. I shall not refer to it, because we do not know whether the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill will be passed, although I hope that it will not. But that is the position.
The Minister of State put forward a second line of defence two years ago—an astonishing one. We always hear on the Floor of the House about cases which cause trouble and difficulty but one would be astonished how many times cases go through well. For every one that is disputed, one hundred cases go through, we were told. I am mentioning that figure from memory, but I think that I have fairly represented the purport of the argument.
It is rather like the taxi driver who said, "I kill only one person in 100, so you are safe in my hands for the next 99 goes". It is not an argument to say that a system works tolerably well, for one is bound to inquire and to wish to discuss the occasions when it fails. The apotheosis of realism was reached last night in the Adjournment debate when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation said words to the effect that the real trouble is that accidents are fortuitous and that is does not matter, statistically speaking, whether an accident kills 100 or one because it might have killed only one, and if it happens to kill 100 it busts the statistics.
I do not believe that we can accept that point of view. This is realism to the extreme. It is basic theory which might be applied to someone looking at pictures by Picasso and trying to find out what was the chemical content. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has already referred to Mr. Schoenman and has put forward a reasoned argument on this subject. It is said, and we believe, that this Bill has nothing to do with this case whatever. If it has nothing to do with it, what has?
No one suggests that Mr. Schoenman is not a distinguished young man who came here to complete his education and is now working with one of the most distinguished philosophers in the world. I thought that it was implicit in the argument that it was suggested that he


was refused because he was suffering from some sort of tendency to sit down in Trafalgar Square. What is it? It is said that this man is defying the law because he is contemplating a breach of Section 54 of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839—yes, 1839—which deals with scrubbing tubs in the street and the letting off of fireworks. It used to deal with prostitutes, but they have all gone. It enables the Commissioner to make an order, to protect people going to churches, and theatres, and so on, and, of course, it can be operated on a very extensive scale, because, on this occasion, it extended from Temple Bar to Parliament Square.
Francis Thompson used to do a lot of sitting about in gutters. He spoke in his finest poem of a Jacob's Ladder from Heaven to Charing Cross. He spoke also of Christ walking
Not of Gennesareth, but Thames!
Had He done so He might have contravened the Act of 1839. Let us remember that Christ, in any event, was an alien. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that He was undesirable? He was certainly a political and He was finally condemned on political grounds. Pontius Pilate was anxious to wash his hands of the case until he was reminded of the wrath of Tiberius whose régime was being undermined.
We have had a dissertation upon piracy which would not have been understood in the reign of Elizabeth I. Sir Francis Drake is reputed by most English historians. Reference has also been made to Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was rather an unsuccessful corset manufacturer and, apparently, there was no more demand for corsets on the eastern seaboard of the United States than on the western seaboard today. But he did not only go to the United States and indulge in political agitation. He went to France and before he went he was elected a member of the Constituent Assembly. They got "fed up" with him after a while and condemned him to death, but they failed by mistake to execute him and he returned to us to gain fame and honour.
Thus, one cannot lay down the proposition about undesirable aliens, because one never knows, when one talks about half-naked Indians—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that they call them Indian fakirs.

Mr. Hale: —yes, half-naked Indian fakirs—whether one will find out later that the person, the half-naked Indian in question, has become as world famous as Mr. Gandhi, a man of sanctity and political sagacity and the great man of his time.
That is one of the reasons for our objections to this Bill. It is one of the reasons why my hon. Friends and I consider that we are putting forward the correct, the Socialist conception of the brotherhood of man when we urge that the weak and defenceless should be as welcome as anybody else.
One of the most moving stories in the New Testament is that which concerns Christ, when he said:
Then shall the King say unto them … For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was a stranger, and ye took me in.
They said, "But when did we do this to you?" and Christ replied:
Inasmuch as we have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
That is the argument my hon. Friends and I are putting forward; that it should be done to the least of these people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne spoke about the non-resister who was to be sent back to America, and of the other cases in which complaint was made of the resistance of a subject of Portugal. But let it be remembered that to qualify if one comes from Hungary one must prove that one is a violent resister, and not a non-resister.
There was a long letter in a newspaper, I think the Guardian, the other day, which referred to a distinguished man—a man of exceptional qualifications—who was offered a job in Britain. He was the only man that the advertiser would accept, but he came from Eastern Germany. He could not enter, because, coming from Eastern Germany, he would not have been in a position to be sent back should he prove undesirable. That is what the position is; we cannot have anyone from that part of the world because of the deportation difficulties in case they break the law. Is that true? Is that really the situation?
Does this not mean that we are saying that we can only accept people under certain circumstances, even if the need for them to come here exists? Are we saying that we cannot have people here who sympathise with Communist rule despite the fact that they might be able to help us to understand these matters better? It seems to me to be the end of international understanding.
A very powerful leading article has appeared in The Times in the last day or two. The hon. Member will say, when we talk about the Common Market—and I am one of those who passionately believe in the ideal of a united Europe, if we can get it—"Well, you haven't read the Treaty of Rome. They have to have a job. They can't come from Italy unless they have a job. They cannot come from Algeria." I know that it is only for the first eight years—but of course they will have a job.
As The Times said, one at once gets an organisation for providing jobs. It will probably be run by the Lonely Hearts people or someone like that, but of course these people will have a job. Any Algerian who is on the run will be able to buy a temporary job in Britain. I do not say that is necessarily a bad thing; I only say that it is singularly bad to provide an opportunity for an organisation to make these people pay for "phoney" jobs, and that it would increase instead of mitigate the problems that would arise.
I believe—and, heaven knows, I do not regard myself as a chauvinist, and I am usually attacked as one who is not sufficiently exultant about the unfurling of the Union Jack—that Britain has in the past contributed in many spheres things of moral value. I believe that our tolerance and decency today are things that are admired throughout the world.
I referred to the public image of Trafalgar Square, and I know that to be true. People said, "This sort of demonstration could not have passed off so peacefully in many countries, apart from Britain and Scandinavia." It could not have passed off in very many other countries that claim a high standard of civilisation. This right of political asylum, of trying to find a home for the persecuted, for refugees from oppression of all kinds and not drawing standards,

not laying down lines of demarcation, not having one law to apply to persons of one nationality and another to apply to those of another nationality—all that is part of the fundamental decency that Britain has represented over these years. I hope that we shall get back to it.
All this business has now got mixed up with espionage fears. We are now told, "If we allow these people in, our secrets may be betrayed." At the same time, we find that broadcast stations have been operating in Britain, apperently finding the getting of secrets to be a singularly simple job. The answer is not to have any secrets; it is highly immoral to have secrets.
The answer would be, as I have suggested before and as I now very seriously suggest again, "Throw open the Foreign Office, as the Duke of Bedford throws open his place, at half-a-crown a head every Saturday morning, charge an extra bob for tea, and an extra two bob for any treaty you may have." That is the absolutely fundamental answer to the reasonable interests of trying to create understanding between nations. If they know how to kill 10 million of us in four minutes they know enough. The only trouble about that scheme is, of course, that after the first fortnight the Foreign Office would not have any visitors.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough: I hope that, after his magnificent burst of oratory, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), will forgive me if I come from the general to the particular, but one point that has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and was touched on by the hon. Member for Oldham, West in his peroration has been worrying me for a long time. This Measure is renewed year by year, and was originally emergency legislation. I am worried about the secrecy involved in it. The effect of that secrecy is sometimes not quite appreciated, and I should like very briefly to give the House an instance of how it has affected innocent people very seriously indeed.
Within this legislation is the absolute right of the Home Secretary to allow or to withhold nationalisation of aliens living here. I was not prepared to speak in this debate, but I am sure that my


hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will well recollect the case I have in mind. I shall not mention any names, because enough damage has been done already. The case has to do with an alien who has lived in my constituency ever since the end of the war. He fought in the war on our side. He is married to a Sussex woman, and has a couple of children. He has a business which has had its ups and downs—it has certainly had its downs. He has not done very well in business. He has not been bankrupt, but he has had bad debts, though he has paid those back.
Not long ago this man applied for naturalisation—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): I am afraid, Sir Harry, that we are here in very great difficulty. My hon. Friend has, without notice, raised an individual naturalisation case. In any event, as I understand it, we cannot discuss naturalisation, because that takes place, not under the Aliens Order or the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, but under the British Nationality Acts of 1948 and 1958. Although I am always sympathetic to hon. Gentlemen who want to raise matters in the House, and do the best I can to help, I am afraid that my hon. Friend is in a position of difficulty for himself and of impossibility for me.

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps it might help if I say that I should have thought that anything that affected the individual concerned which was consequent upon the Aliens Act would be in order, but that anything beyond that would come under another Act, and would not be in order.

Mr. Gough: I am very grateful to you, Sir Harry, but I think that I can make my point without going further into the details of the case. Suffice it to say that this man's application was eventually turned down. It was supported by people of very considerable substance within the neighbourhood, but it was turned down. The point is that because the application was turned down without any rhyme or reason whatever being given for it—and I have never to this day had the slightest inkling of an idea, either from my hon. and learned Friend, who discussed it with me, or

from the Home Secretary, or from anyone else why the application was turned down—a great deal of harm has been done to this man. He is still in this country as an alien, and now imagines that he is an undesirable alien. The Home Office has not gone to the extent of having him deported, so is he desirable or undesirable?
The much more serious point is that all round the neighbourhood the finger of suspicion has been pointed at the police—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to have to stop the hon. Gentleman, but my difficulty is that the decision as to whether or not the man should be naturalised was taken under an Act different from the Measure we are discussing. I think that in this debate the only part on which the hon. Member would be in order would be on whether the man should remain in the country or be deported. I am afraid that he cannot go further than that.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Sir Harry. It is perfectly true that in this debate no one can complain about the granting of or refusal to grant a naturalisation certificate; that is done under a wholly different procedure and a wholly different Act. But, as I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, it relates not so much to the result of the application but to the state of secrecy; the inability to know reasons; the inability to know why; the inability to know what is against one in order to have an opportunity to answer it. All that, of course, is part of my own case against this Act. Would not the hon. Member be entitled to be heard if he confined himself to that aspect of the matter, and did not complain of the refusal of the naturalisation certificate? Would he not be illustrating one of the most difficult aspects of our present argument?

The Temporary Chairman: As I have explained, it is in order to raise the question of whether there should be secrecy under the operation of the Aliens Act but not under the British Nationality Acts. That is a separate issue, and I am afraid that the hon. Member must not go on referring to it.

Mr. Gough: I was going to say, Sir Harry, that I am only too grateful to you


for putting the position so clearly, because that is precisely what I want to say. What is the position of this man? He is not my constituent because he is an alien. He wants to know his position. Is he desirable or undesirable? I as a Member of the House have no means of finding out whether he is desirable or not. The point I wanted to make really was that all this kind of emergency legislation—and this is a typical example, which has been renewed year by year from 1919 up till now—always has within it, and must have within it, this element of secrecy.
I bow to you, Sir Harry, for having allowed me to go so far, and I merely wish to put forward the view that there is this danger of secrecy in this type of legislation. It is for that reason that I support my hon. Friend who said he thought that it was high time that we brought this type of legislation permanently on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When I first came into the House the hon. and learned Gentleman who is to answer this debate was a National Liberal with a capital "L" and I was an international liberal with a small "l". But today he will be speaking not as a liberal in the real sense of the word but as a rather reactionary conservative. I hope that I am wrong, but that is the assumption that we are making. I wonder what Mr. Gladstone would have thought of him, because under Mr. Gladstone's régime they even let in Karl Marx and Garibaldi, and a good many other people too. In these days we say that we are proud of that because we represent the free world.
I cannot help thinking that there is a political angle in the attitude of the Home Office. If a Russian from a visiting Russian cultural delegation or from a concert group or ballet group decides to come into this country, he is almost invariably given political asylum without very many questions being asked, and, as far as I can see, there is no objection to that. I wonder how far that policy would go at the present time. If a Russian escapes from a Russian ship it is taken for granted almost axiomatically that he must be welcome as a political refugee if he can be used

in the propaganda cold war against the Russian Government.
I wonder what would happen if Mr. Molotov decided to arrive here. That would be a problem for the Home Secretary, would it not? The right hon. Gentleman would not know whether to use Mr. Molotov in the propaganda cold war against the present Government of Mr. Khrushchev or under what Section of the Aliens Ant he could deport him as an undesirable alien. One cannot help thinking that there is one rule for Russian political refugees who come here and quite another for all of these other refugees.
I wonder how the Secretary of State for the Home Department informs people that their presence is not required in this country and that they are undesirable refugees. When I first came to the House, one of the first cases which I had to take up was that of an Estonian lady who had escaped from Estonia and had gone to Ireland. She was given a job in a London hospital and arrived there without the necessary authorisation. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had to deal with the case and, acting on advice, he said that her case had been considered and that he regretted that within 48 hours, or some similar time, she would have to leave the country. The letter ended, "Your obedient servant, Chuter Ede". Whenever this lady comes to the House of Commons she recognises the sedate and dignified figure of my right hon. Friend and says, "That is my obedient servant." This case was taken up and I must say that my right hon. Friend was liberal. The lady was allowed to stay.
What are we going to do about the Schoenman case? America has its own ideas about undesirable aliens, too. There was a time when American policy with regard to deportations and permission to leave the country was summarised by the fact that they would not allow Paul Robeson out and would not allow Charlie Chaplin in. They eventually allowed Paul Robeson out, but they have not yet allowed Charlie Chaplin in as they look upon him as an undesirable alien. It is quite possible that when the Home Secretary decides to deport Mr. Schoenman it will be explained that he is the secretary of Lord Russell who has


been organising demonstrations in Trafalgar Square, in Scotland against the Polaris and outside the Russian Embassy, too, and that he is a dangerous and undesirable alien whom the Americans will not want to get back. I wonder what they will do then?
I do not understand why it is necessary for the Home Office to end Mr. Schoenman's permit to live in this country. When I first met Mr. Schoenman he was in a very dangerous and seditious place called the London School of Economics. Who knows, an American immigration officer may say, "This man has had an education in a very undesirable and seditious place." I wonder whether if Mr. Schoenman had not been connected with the Committee of 100 but had been involved in, say, throwing a bottle at a referee of a football match he would have been deported. I doubt very much whether the Home Office would have taken so much interest in him.
Here is a gentleman whose crime is not that of being violent or disorderly at all. He has not been accused, as in the case of Captain Galvao, of murder. His crime is that he is against mass murder. This is a form of passive, non-violent resistance which, after all, cannot be said greatly to endanger the life of a civilised community, and yet we are taking this measure against him just because he happens to be a political nuisance. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State thinks that Mr. Schoenman is going to the British Museum, after having been in the London School of Economics, and is going to expand upon the theories of Karl Marx. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is liberal, in any sense of the word, he ought to consider this case.
5.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) referred to Tom Paine. I am sure that Tom Paine would have great difficulties at this time, because he is the man who did not believe in passports. He said "The world is my country and mankind is my religion." That is a rank, seditious, subversive doctrine in the opinion of those who are in charge of the Home Office. I wonder what would have happened to George Washington. They certainly would not have allowed him to come because in the time of George III

he was regarded as a liberal. It is only when we consider this matter and try to avoid prejudices that we, find there is very little logic in the case at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of undesirable aliens, and in the back streets they call them "bloody foreigners". It is part of the insular attitude of British people, and it is an attitude which is certainly not consistent—

Mr. Doughty: Is the hon. Member suggesting that there are no such people as undesirable aliens in this country?

Mr. Hughes: Of course, I do not suggest that. There are undesirable aliens, just as there are undesirable politicians. Dr. Johnson said:
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
I would say that patriotism is the first refuge of a discredited politician. In this attitude we are trying to appeal to the basest, crudest and cruellest emotions of the lot. Therefore, I hope that our Amendment will be carried. After all, we are supposed to be part of what is called the free world. We are prepared to destroy the universe in order to maintain the traditions of the free world, and here we are about to agree to this pettifogging piece of intolerance by a puppet of a police State. That is what it comes to. That is the logic of it. Therefore, I hope that our protest will have some effect upon the policy of the Government, and that is why I support the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: A few years ago Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, produced an Order made under this Act we are renewing which brought all the provisions relating to aliens into that one Order. In that new Order he combined a large number of Orders and cancelled all the others. Since that time every year when I have had the opportunity I have pressed the advisability of making that Order an Act of Parliament.
I renew that suggestion today, because if it were adopted every one of these provisions during the Committee stage would have to be examined in detail and one by one added to the Bill so that in the end we should have an Act of Parliament which had been fully considered by the House. So far there has been no indication that anything on those lines will be done. But merely as a


matter of form this afternoon I think it is essential that one should once again ask the Government whether they can put that Order through the House in the form of a Bill.
The first excuse always is, "It is much easier to alter an Order than it is to alter a Bill. If we put this into a Bill which received the approval of the House we cannot amend it unless we have a new Bill to secure that end." I think it is desirable that a matter of this kind should be enshrined in a Parliamentary Measure which has had the definite approval of the House so that all its details can be accepted as the law of the land. I rather regret that the hon. Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), for whom I have the friendliest of feelings—I do not know whether I would be allowed to call them my hon. Friends—have not mentioned this point this afternoon, as it is the most important part of this issue.
I do not wish to discuss the question of Mr. Schoenman. I am sure that in view of the fact that he took this political line he will be allowed back into the United States of America. I did not interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman to mention a case—I forget the name of the man, but he was a doctor—

Mr. S. Silverman: His name was Cort.

Mr. Ede: That was the name. He was employed in a hospital in this country. As soon as the American Government knew that he had certain objections to the line of policy that they were pursuing, they served him with his military service papers and ordered him back to the United States to perform his military service. It was quite certain that if he went back he was going to be prosecuted under one of their numerous statutes dealing with people who do not share the general American view. Although the United States was founded largely by nonconformists, it is a bad thing to be a nonconformist in America today.
When he declined to return to America the authorities notified the British Government that they would not be prepared to receive him back, and, on that, efforts were made to deport him. Czechoslovakia expressed a willingness to

employ him. He was a most distinguished man in a branch of the medical profession. He went to Czechoslovakia; the Americans did not get him and we lost his services. Is this gentleman who is the secretary to Earl Russell, who is by no means persona grata in America, going to be in that position? Have the Government any idea on that point?
The only other matter I want to deal with is this case of Dr. Galvao. In my constituency there is a terrace of houses known as Garibaldi Terrace, and I am bound to say that a lot of the youths of the borough think that in some way it is a memorial to a biscuit which was a great favourite in my earlier days, although it is not seen so often today. Garibaldi was invited to South Shields when he was in this country, and the borough presented him with a sword in recognition of his services to the cause of liberty in Europe and particularly in Italy. But the number of people who died as a result of Garibaldi's efforts to unite Italy was far greater than the number of deaths which the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) attributed to this Portuguese captain.
Everyone who has ever been a liberal, either with a small "l" or a big "L," and has put no word in front of it to destroy the liberalism, will, I think, want to know why this man, who is resisting a tyranny that is at least as great as that of either the Bourbons or the Sicilian Government, is persona non grata in this country.
I cannot think that our treaty relations with Portugal, long as they may go back and little as they have assisted us in recent years, can demand that we should take this particular action against this man. Let us be quite certain of this: it is generally believed by the ordinary people of this country that this man is excluded from this country because he opposes Portugal's policy in Angola—I know of very few people in this country who do other than adopt the same line—and it gives a wrong conception of public opinion in this country. I hope that the Minister of State, in his reply, will be able to give us some reason, consistent with that small part of his Liberal past that survives, which will justify the action that has been taken.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to echo the views expressed by a number of hon. Members about the


courtesy which the hon. and learned Gentleman always shows in replying to all the points made in these debates. We are very grateful for that. I must at the same time say that I agree with those who regret the absence of the Home Secretary. This is a particular subject that we are debating on which the Home Secretary has to make personal decisions which no one else can make. Cases have been raised which by the law of the land, are in his sole personal discretion. This debate, although there is not a large number of participants, is none the less one in which the rights of liberty are raised, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will convey this view to his right hon. Friend because this matter will come up each year, and each year the same things apply.
We are debating today the restrictions on the immigration of aliens and tomorrow we shall be debating the restrictions on the immigration of Commonwealth citizens. One thing that seems absolutely essential is that Commonwealth citizens should have greater rights than aliens of entry into this country. This brings me to the question raised by a number of my hon. Friends and by one hon. Member opposite: whether or not we ought to have a permanent Act dealing with the restriction and control of the entry of the aliens.
There is a very powerful case for this. We are operating this law now without it being a real law. There are a whole lot of Orders which we have never discussed and which we have not been able to amend, and there is a strong case for our being able to do so. If we are realistic, we must accept that if we had such an Act it would give very great discretionary powers to the Secretary of State and we should not have an annual debate about them. This is something that I always bear in mind. We should not have been able to hear the speeches of the hon. Gentleman who demanded a permanent Act because we should not have had this annual debate, and it is of great importance that we should have it.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: This point has emerged in previous debates. The suggestion was that an Act would provide for an annual return by the Secretary

of State which would provide an occasion for annual debate.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: That suggestion has been made in regard to a number of different Bills from time to time and never accepted. Once the Government get permanent legislation they do not do that sort of thing. Although we may say that we would like an annual debate, we only get an annual debate if we renew the Act each year. It will be quite extraordinary if we can debate annually the rights of aliens to come into and to reside in this country and not debate annually the rights of Commonwealth citizens to come in and to stay in this country. This would be a most extraordinary difference of treatment. Because of this annual debate we have been able to raise individual cases, argue them and get answers from the Government. We have on a number of occasions influenced the Government of the day as the result of raising individual cases, and, what is more important in some ways, as a result of these annual debates over the years, in which I have taken part in quite a few and read them all, we have brought about changes in Government policy which would not have occurred but for these annual debates, or would not have occurred so quickly.
Regarding individual cases, I feel rather strongly about the case of Captain Galvao. Here is involved the right of asylum. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said, "You can take the right of asylum too far". That is perfectly true. But we can also not take it far enough. We have to get the balance right. It seems that in this case we have not taken it far enough. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that when Garibaldi came here we understood what we were doing. We did not regard our own attitude to the country from which he came, but we regarded his own rights as a political refugee.
What I dislike in the Government's treatment of this case, which has emerged from a number of Answers given by the hon. and learned Gentleman previously, is that the real factor has not been whether Captain Galvao is a political refugee in the proper sense but


our attitude towards Portugal. There has been this very great interference of the Foreign Office and our foreign political attitude. This seems to be a very dangerous thing. If this comes in—and the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested it in a number of Answers—it really undermines the whole idea of asylum and it will not go far enough if we apply new ideas of this sort. Someone said that he might be extradited if he came here. He went to Norway and Sweden and he was not extradited.

Mr. S. Silverman: He could not be extradited.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Applications for extradition might be made. Whether or not he would be extradited is a matter for the courts and very likely he would not be. It offends me as an Englishman who believes in liberty that countries like Norway and Sweden will allow this man to go in and lecture, with all the difficulties and troubles, if there are any, while Britain will not. I cannot believe that we are properly applying the doctrine of asylum when we have so different a practice in this case from those other countries.
On the question of policy, we have had real influence over the years. One consequence of this debate is that it enables us to keep our figures up to date year by year and we are very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for briefing us up to date on the number of deported aliens, resident aliens and the other figures which he always gives us each year. Since 1956—I think as a result of the annual debates in this House—aliens who have been here for two years have a right when threatened with deportation to go to the Chief Magistrate. Although the opinion which he gives is only advisory, it has been accepted by the Home Office, and the figure amounts to quite a lot. Sixteen per cent. of the cases, judging by the figures which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave us last year, were turned down by the Chief Magistrate. That means that something like five out of 31 were accepted. These cases were, in effect, treated like appeals by the Home Secretary although it is only an advisory opinion. Last year, we obtained a very great improvement.

Police registration methods were completely overhauled and changed and 250,000 aliens were taken out of registration altogether. We are very grateful for that. Again, that was something which came out of our annual discussion and the pressure of debate.
I wish now to raise a question which was raised last year. The hon. and learned Gentleman will, I am sure, have given his mind to it. What is the legal authority under the Act by which British subjects, United Kingdom citizens, are compelled by law to write their names in hotel registers? Taken unawares last year, the hon. and learned Gentleman gave us the wrong case. I do not blame him for that, except that he should not give any opinion when taken unawares, but, of course, I realise that he does not carry all these things in his head all the time.
However, the result was that at the end of last year's debate we still did not know what the legal authority for this requirement was. We cannot find it ourselves in the Act and we should like to know. It is said, although it does not sound very probable, that this legal obligation laid on United Kingdom citizens arises out of the very Act we are discussing. That is what we have been told in the past, and that is why I ask the question again now.
Some hon. Members have referred to the possibility of our entering the Common Market. Entry into the Common Market would, of course, very greatly affect our present aliens law; we could not work our present Order at all even during the early stages of joining the Common Market, still less with the greater liberty of movement which would come in the recruitment of labour offers of employment and so forth in a few years, with very great, perhaps complete, liberty of movement throughout the Community as a whole. I take it that the Home Office, which is a very efficient Department of State and always looks ahead, has been giving its mind to this problem. It would be interesting if the hon. and learned Gentleman could tell us a little about how he thinks our aliens law and the administration of Orders under the Act will have to be changed or whether the whole thing will go into the melting pot.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne


(Mr. S. Silverman) and other hon. Members in saying that the real issue at the bottom of all our discussion of this subject is arbitrary power. We are giving arbitary power to a Minister of the Crown over a large number of residents who live here with us in this country. I, for one, do not object to at any rate the right to prohibit the entry of aliens. That seems to me to be necessary. I do not object to the right of deportation of aliens who may not have been here very long, about whom we do not know very much and who turn out to be "bad hats". I am not against that. It seems to me, nevertheless, that we should carry much further the idea, introduced in 1956, of aliens with two years' residence having certain rights to go to the Chief Magistrate.
I suggest that we should make a distinction between what one may call settled aliens and recent aliens. The settled alien is someone who has lived here, let us say, for two years, that being the period taken by the Government in 1956 as the criterion. We should distinguish between such settled aliens and others who have not lived here so long. Aliens who have lived here for two years have behaved during that time. I am not talking about people who come before the courts, and so on, who can be deported under a different arrangement; I am talking about those who have lived here, who are settled here and who have been useful residents. These people, I submit, ought to have an absolute right of appeal against a deportation order. I do not suggest that in no circumstances is it right to make a deportation order, but I submit that settled aliens ought to be regarded as having acquired a certain measure of right, after having been among us in this country, and they ought to have an absolute right of appeal not to the Chief Magistrate, whose opinion is only advisory, but to someone who can, outside the Government, determine whether it is right to order their deportation or not.
One has always to decide what points one wishes to raise and what not to raise on this occasion. Those are the matters of concern which I wish to ventilate, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to deal with some of them and with the points which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have put to him during the debate.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Renton: This is the forty-second time that the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act has appeared in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is an interesting historical fact, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) may care to take note, that, until 1948, the question whether it should be left out of the Schedule to the Bill was never mentioned in the House at all.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) may claim the credit for having been the first to break the spell in just about thirty years. I believe it was in 1948 that he, by moving a manuscript Amendment, became the first hon. Member to have the matter raised. It has been raised every year since then. This is the fourth occasion when I have had to reply to the debate.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) that these debates are valuable. I acknowledge the help which I have had from both sides of the Committee on each occasion. I say quite candidly, having some responsibility, under the Home Secretary, for the administration of this part of our law, that it is not an easy task. We are anxious to be humane and liberal. At the same time, we have to be consistent so that justice may be done. This is undoubtedly a very valuable occasion for hon. Members to express their views. We take very careful note of them and benefit from the debate.
On each of the three previous occasions, and again today, the Government have been pressed by hon. Members on each side to introduce permanent legislation to deal with aliens control. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said that it was a bad constitutional practice to operate in this way. The right hon. Member for Smethwick, I think, hinted at the advantages of it. Be that as it may, on each of the last three occasions we have conceded the need to do something in the matter, in other words, the need for having permanent legislation, but we have said that it cannot seriously be considered urgent.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), the right hon. Member


for Smethwick and others drew attention to the fact that in this Session we are to have a Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, and I think that their suggestion was that there might have been advantage in dealing with the question of aliens at the same time. There is, however, a very strong reason for not having permanent legislation this Session, and that reason was touched on—I do not say in the sense that they agreed with me—by the hon. Member for Swindon and by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot).
The reason is that negotiations have started with a view to our entering the European Economic Community. The Treaty of Rome contains provisions relating to the freer movement of workers and the right of establishment and under regulations approved by the Council of Ministers in June this year it seems that administrative control of the movement of workers by each member country of the Common Market is envisaged. We cannot yet say what the final decision will be. It would not be wise or practicable to draft permanent legislation to replace the Aliens Order until Parliament has reached a final decision about our entering the Common Market and we know the terms on which we are to do so.
As was said by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), whose contribution we have not had this year—

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I hope to make it in a few minutes.

Mr. Renton: I am glad that that is a possibility. The hon. Member aptly and succinctly put it last year in this way:
… we are not really so much concerned with the formal statutory form of the legislation. We are far more concerned with the way the policy is administered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 413–4.]
That is a very natural point of view.
The essential feature of our aliens control is that foreigners wishing to enter the United Kingdom must first obtain leave to land. That leave is normally granted by an immigration officer. I know that this is familiar to hon. Members who follow this subject from year

to year, but it is not always appreciated by all hon. Members or, indeed, by the public and Press. That is why I am pointing out the foundations of the policy. The immigration officers are empowered to attach conditions to the grant of leave to land, and those conditions generally govern the foreigner's length of stay and his freedom to take work here. The immigration officers are also empowered to turn back those comparatively rare cases of foreigners whom we are not prepared to admit.
I come now to the figures, of which I always have to give a great many. This may be some strain on the attention of hon. Members, but I shall do my best to give the figures clearly and rather slowly. During the year ended 30th September, the total number of passengers using United Kingdom ports increased from just over 11 million to more than 12¼ million. That includes airports and seaports, inwards and outwards traffic, British and foreign passengers. Out of that total, the number of foreigners granted leave to land—that is, incoming foreign passengers—was 1,787,566. That was an increase of 89,406, or 5·2 per cent. over the corresponding period in 1959–60. I suggest that that increase is a further welcome sign of the United Kingdom's popularity with tourists and other visitors. These short-term visitors, tourists and others, accounted for more than 1¼ million of the foreign passenger arrivals during the year.
As the British Travel and Holidays Association has pointed out, tourism in 1960 became our fourth largest export. I am, therefore, glad to mention, as the hon. Member for Swindon invited me to do, two recent developments which should help to stimulate this important trade. The first is the abolition of visas with effect from 1st June, 1961, for people of those Latin-American countries which are still subject to the visa requirement. It is a pleasure to be able to tell the Committee that the whole of the American Continent, from the far north to the far south, is now visa-free as far as we are concerned.

Mr. M. Foot: Including Cuba?

Mr. Renton: I understand that it includes Cuba.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is this on a reciprocal basis? Are we visa-free as far as they are concerned for travel from this country?

Mr. Renton: I should like to check that. For the most part, this is reciprocal. There may be one or two exceptions.
The second development which should help the tourist trade is this. There has been an extension since last April to France, Monaco, Switzerland and Liechtenstein of arrangements under which people of certain Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries may come here without passports for social or holiday visits of up to three months provided that they bring their national identity cards and complete a visitors' card which is obtainable free of charge from the British Travel and Holidays Association through travel agents. If a visitor arrives and does not happen to have one of these cards with him, he can be supplied with one and can complete it before he goes further. A warm tribute is due to the Association for the contribution which it is making to this new scheme. The hon. Member for Swindon asked me for the number of people who took advantage of it. During the year ended 30th September, over 70,000 visitors from O.E.C.D. countries took advantage of it.
I wish now to deal with the question of refusal of leave to land. That is, so to speak, the negative side of our policy and one way in which hon. Members can be most easily shown how it is working. Viewed against the background of over 1¾ million arrivals of foreign passengers refusals of leave to land numbering 3,235 can be seen in proper perspective. This represents only 0·18 per cent. of arrivals, or one foreigner in 552, and compares with 2,618 in the previous year.
Refusal of leave to land is not undertaken lightly by immigration officers. The Committee may wish to have some indication of the kind of cases involved. The total of 3,235 includes 251 technical refusals—that is, passengers who came here merely in transit. They did not want to visit the country, but had to come here because in the course of their journey their aeroplane landed here or their ship called here. Of the remainder, 466 people had insufficient means to support themselves during their proposed stay.

One thousand one hundred and forty-eight people were refused admission because they had come to work here, but did not have valid labour permits. Two hundred and sixty-two people had no travel document and 56 had no visa in circumstances which required one.
Four hundred and forty sought permanent settlement for which they were not eligible, 84 were unacceptable on medical grounds, and 141 were stowaways.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say in which category Captain Galvao comes?

Mr. Renton: Captain Galvao was one who was refused a visa for which, the hon. Gentleman will recollect, he applied. That is not quite right, because in the first place he applied for a visa when he was in South America, but was refused one. He would not come into these figures because he was not a passenger, but he became a passenger after 30th September, and the figures that I am giving relate to the twelve months ended 30th September. I use that date each year, because it is the most convenient date for this debate. Therefore, Captain Galvao will come into next year's figures.
That leaves 384 people who are best described as miscellaneous undesirables, including people with criminal records and security cases.

Mr. M. Foot: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say how many were criminal cases and how many were security cases out of the 384?

Mr. Renton: I cannot, on the spur of the moment, answer that question.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Minister of State assure us that they are separate categories in his Department so that the figures can be obtained if a Question is tabled? Or are all the cases lumped together?

Mr. Renton: Naturally, they are in separate categories. I have tried to simplify the matter by going into a considerable disintegration, if that is the right word, of the figures. I felt that it might be a burden to hon. Members if I went into too much detail. I am trying to give a fairly broad picture. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me or


tables a Question, I may be able to give him the answer.
As has been acknowledged today, as on previous occasions, the efficient and smooth working of the control depends on the diligence and good sense of our immigration officers. Some hon. Members may have seen a film entitled "The Net", which B.B.C. television showed a little while ago and which faithfully and vividly portrayed the work of the Immigration Service. If that film is still available, I should like to arrange, if possible, for hon. Members who did not see it to have the opportunity to do so, because it shows the difficulties of the work, its great variety and importance and what can be achieved by immigration officers in sometimes stopping very evil things. Theirs is indeed difficult as well as important work. I have visited a number of ports in recent months. I have seen them at it and my admiration increases all the time.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Immigration, Mr. C. P. Ruck, became an immigration officer in 1919, the year of the Act which we are considering, and has been in the service ever since. He has been chief inspector for over ten years and he is due to retire in January. I know that it is unusual to pay tribute to officials who are about to retire, but his part in the work has been so outstanding that I feel it right to mention it to the Committee.
Just as hon. Members are rightly concerned about refusals of leave to land, they are equally vigilant about deportation. It must be generally accepted—the hon. Member for Islington, East was good enough to accept it last year in at least a limited sense—that no system of immigration control could be effective without the ultimate sanction of deportation. It is, however, used only when really necessary.
Over recent years, there have been about 100 deportations a year. In 1958, 131 people were deported; in 1959, there were 86; last year, 106; and in the first ten months of this year, 76. Of the 106 who were deported in 1960, exactly one half had been recommended by the courts and the other half were cases in which the Home Secretary decided under Article 20 (2, b) that

deportation would be conductive to the public good.
Of those 53 cases, 19 people were mentally disordered, 16 were criminals in respect of whom the court had made no recommendation, six were destitute malingerers, four were persistently unsatisfactory workers, four were people who refused to leave after their time had expired and three were students who refused to study. The remaining person was a prostitute.
Every one of the 106 cases received the personal scrutiny first of myself and then of my right hon. Friend, who had to sign the order. In no case since the system was introduced in 1956 has deportation ever been carried out after the Chief Magistrate had considered a case and advised against it. Whenever an alien has been here for two years or more and where there has been no recommendation by a criminal court and it is not a security case, the foreigner has a right to make representations to the Chief Magistrate.
Since those arrangements were made, 84 aliens have been eligible to make representations, but only 43 have availed themselves of the opportunity. In 31 of those cases, the Chief Magistrate concurred in the proposal to deport. In nine cases, he did not concur and there are three cases pending.
In last year's debate, I announced an important relaxation of our regulations for registration with the police, namely, that foreigners who have been accepted for permanent residence were to be completely exempted from police registration. These included, among others, many people who had been here under Ministry of Labour permits for four years or more.
6.15 p.m.
The Aliens Order, 1960, followed the announcement and the change came into effect on 1st January this year. On that date, 405,000 aliens were registered with the police, but as a result of the Order over 280,000 became at once and automatically exempt. By 30th September, the number of exemptions had risen to 295,000, so that the number remaining registered with the police is 120,000. All those who benefited by the change were told by the police that they had benefited. The police endorsed their documents and carried out the whole operation with


smoothness and efficiency. We hope that that big once-and-for-all operation will result in some saving of administrative duties for the police as time goes on.
The hon. Member for Swindon asked me how many aliens are in permanent residence. I have given the answer by telling him how many people are now exempted from registration with the police. I should give the hon. Member an estimate of what we think are likely to be the additional numbers. I can give only a gross figure, because to make a net figure would mean making a calculation, which it is impossible to make, of the number of aliens who die and the number who decide not to stay here, although they have been accepted for permanent residence, and who go elsewhere. They do not necessarily return to their own country; they may emigrate elsewhere. The gross number of the estimated addition to the permanent population of aliens is 16,000 next year. It was probably nearly that figure this year.
The hon. Member for Swindon also asked me about World Refugee Year. The Committee will remember that in last year's debate I gave a detailed survey of the contribution which the Government were making to World Refugee Year, with particular reference to handicapped refugees admitted to this country under special Home Office schemes. I said that although World Refugee Year had then ended, we were sending a third selection mission to Germany and Austria to select further refugees from the camps and for whom sponsorships were available in this country.
In the early part of this year, that mission selected another 390 refugees, thus bringing the total to over 1,100, nearly all of whom were handicapped refugees of long standing who had previously been unable to find anywhere else to go and who were kept in camps on the Continent. We feel that this contribution towards the solution of the refugee problem is one of which we may justly feel proud. I should add that there are some residual cases which are still being considered, and that it is probable that a few more of those people will be admitted this winter.
The hon. Member also asked me whether I could say something about

how these people are settling down. Well, of course, he will understand that once they have come in here under the Home Office scheme they are looked after either by private agencies or by voluntary agencies, or they just live as ordinary citizens, and it would be quite impossible for us to keep, so to speak, our "tabs" on all of them; but we do hear of the occasional case which goes wrong. For the most part we feel that this scheme has been well justified and is, broadly speaking, giving satisfaction.
One of my hon. Friends asked me, as did the hon. Member for Swindon, about our methods of handling traffic at the ports, seaports and airports. Of course, in this context one has to remember that the London airports, London Airport itself and Gatwick, are now handling a vast amount of traffic, by far a larger proportion of traffic than at any individual seaport. I myself have had a good look at this during the last few months. I visited a number of ports and London Airport to see what our Immigration Service was doing with a view to minimising the delay, and of course the irritation which delay always causes. One must remember that it is not merely a question of handling the alien traffic; it is a question of handling all the 12¼ million passengers, including the British.
We have considered this matter very carefully. I do not want to burden the Committee with a lot of detail about my own observations on this matter and of what is being done, but let my say that at London Airport we have introduced this summer an entirely new marshalling system which hon. Members may have seen in operation and which is undoubtedly enabling the traffic to be handled more quickly there.
I have satisfied myself that the system of on-passage working to which the hon. Member referred has been extended as far as we can get it to go at this moment. After all, on-passage working is only feasible when the shipping company has both the facilities and the will to provide accommodation for the passport officer. Sometimes the facilities are just not available, and also, of course, we really do need a Tannoy system—a broadcasting system—in a ship so that people may be reminded that the passport officer is available. Not all ships have this, but we


shall extend the system as and when we can. It is working to a very great extent at the moment. For example, in trans-Atlantic liners it works between Cherbourg and Southampton as a matter of regular practice.
There has been no mention in the debate today of the burning question of segregation, which I have looked into very closely myself—segregation, that is, of holders of British passports and others. They are not any longer called aliens, in glaring notices. I think that segregation is unavoidable. I am sorry, but it is. Segregation undoubtedly saves a very great deal of time, and if we did not have segregation I think that the delays in handling many of the foreigners would be greater, and, of course, the delays in handling the British would be very much greater. On balance, we feel that segregation is well worth having when it really does save time, and we find, also, that the number of complaints which we get about it has been steadily dwindling over the years, because, I think, need for the system has become more generally understood.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has been criticised in the past about this, I should like to say at the airports, anyway, it seems to be done so tactfully now as to cause no irritation at all. I am grateful, and I should like to thank him for the progress which has been made.

Mr. Renton: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that. I think that the new arrangements at London Airport especially are so tactful, so unobtrusive, that people hardly realise that there is segregation going on.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give the legal authority for asking British people to sign hotel registers. A very fair question, if I may say so. Last year, I unintentionally may have misled the Committee, because I think, without checking it back, that I said then that this had been tested in the courts, but, in fact, it has not been tested in the courts. I am very sorry unintentionally to have misled the Committee last year. As it has not been tested in the courts it is not for me to attempt to give an authoritative ruling, because it is not for me to express an opinion on a matter of vires.
Therefore, with that qualification, and for what it is worth, I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, because it is the 1919 Act which carries forward the powers of the 1914 Act and the authority for making the aliens orders is basically in the 1914 Act. What the 1919 Act did was to say that those orders could be made even though there was no emergency.
Therefore, in the 1914 Act we have to refer to Section 1 (1, i) whereby
provision may be made by the Order (i) for conferring upon such persons as may be specified in the Order such powers with respect to arrest, detention, search of premises or persons, and otherwise, as may be specified in the Order, and for any other ancillary matters for which it appears expedient to provide with a view to giving full effect to the Order".
As I say, it is a matter for the courts to interpret. We cannot. All that we can say is that in our opinion, so that we may have effective control of aliens, it is necessary to ask our own people to comply with certain formalities.

Mr. Gordon Walker: While being grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, I would say that the earlier this is tested in the courts the better. It seems to rest on an extremely flimsy foundation.

Mr. Renton: It is not for me to comment on that.

Mr. S. Silverman: I may not quite have followed, but I understand that it may be claimed that the Section of the 1914 Act to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred gives the Home Secretary the power to require this, but has the Home Secretary ever required it? Has he ever made an Order which asks for it? If so, under what authority did he claim to take that power?

Mr. Renton: No, I think that the hon. Gentleman has not quite followed. The point is that the 1914 Act gave power to make orders, and the order in question with which we are concerned is the Aliens Order, 1953, which is the Order in which these powers were used, including the point about hotel registration.
I should just for the sake of completeness point out that provisions dealing with hotel registration were amended in


the Aliens Order of 1957, and there it was dealt with by way of repeal and re-enactment.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: Has the Minister of State a copy of the 1957 Order before him?

Mr. Renton: Yes.

Mr. Fletcher: My recollection is that it made quite a distinct difference. It introduced a change which provided in future that whereas aliens were required on registering at an hotel to give their names and addresses there was no such obligation on British subjects. My recollection is that it was because of the 1957 Order that it is now abundantly clear that no British subject staying at any hotel in the United Kingdom has any obligation to give either his name or address in writing.

Mr. Renton: The position, as I am advised, is that Article 19 (1) of the Aliens Order, 1953, as amended by the 1957 Order, requires every person aged 16 and over who stays at an hotel or boarding house to notify the keeper of the premises of his name and nationality. This applies equally to British subjects as to aliens, but aliens have to furnish certain additional personal particulars which British subjects do not have to furnish. Nevertheless, I am advised that British subjects have to register and the only people who can say that this is wrong are the courts.

Mr. Fletcher: There is nothing in that Order which obliges a British subject to register in writing. The obligation is to give his name and address, which he can do verbally.

Mr. Renton: That is a very much narrower point than that which the right hon. Member for Smethwick asked me. The interpretation of the law, even of delegated legislation, is not a matter for us. It is a matter for the courts.

Sir Barnett Janner: As there is an ambiguity about this, and it is obvious that a British subject ought not to be compelled to do it, would it not be advisable for the Home Office, without waiting for an order of the court, to alter the Order and make clear in it that that should not be required?

Mr. Renton: I do not think that the hon. Member appreciates the difficulty. If we wish to have control over foreigners, a certain amount of cooperation from our own people is required. That is why, for example, we have to require British people to produce passports at the ports, otherwise we should not know whether or not they were foreigners. It is as simple as that.
A great deal of discussion has taken place in the debate about two individual cases, with which I propose to deal. The first is the case of Schoenman. The right hon. Member for Smethwick also asked about the case of Galvao. I wish to make it abundantly plain that Mr. Schoenman has not been asked to leave the country because of his views about nuclear disarmament. He has been asked to leave for the very plain reasons which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), who showed an interest in this case.
I shall quote from a letter which the hon. Member received from my right hon. Friend. I can, of course, lay the whole letter if necessary, but I will now quote this essential part of it:
The reason why I did not feel able to extend Mr. Schoenman's permit to stay was, as you were good enough to recognise, his breaches of the law. My conclusion is now strengthened by his subsequent refusal to be bound over to keep the peace, for which he is just completing a two months' sentence of imprisonment. I am not at all concerned with his views; but I cannot in fairness to others allow an alien to stay in this country who not only breaks our laws but actively and publicly helps to organise breaches of the law by other people.
Those are the reasons why Mr. Schoenman has been asked to go, and I hope that now that these reasons have been heard by the Committee they will be well understood and the position will be perfectly plain.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked me a number of hypothetical questions. Normally, one is ill-advised to answer hypothetical questions, but, greatly daring, I will answer this one. He asked me whether Mr. Schoenman would have been deported—and so far there is only a question of his being asked to leave—if he had thrown a bottle at a football match.


If Mr. Schoenman had thrown a bottle at a football match and it had done no harm whatever, obviously he would not have been deported, but if he had thrown it intending to hit and hurt the referee and, perhaps, had killed him, it is probable that he would have been deported.
I was also asked another hypothetical question by the hon. Member, which I hope it will not be irrelevant to answer. He asked what we would have done about Molotov. That is essentially hypothetical, because the first thing that Molotov would have had to do would have been to obtain leave to get out of Russia, and that is not a difficulty in which people are placed here.

Mr. S. Silverman: But suppose that he had obtained permission to leave Russia?

Mr. Hale: He could have come from Austria.

Mr. Renton: I am talking about the present circumstances. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is interested in the debate, I am obliged to congratulate him on having stolen a march for the anti-party over the Establishment concerning the debate in getting his name on the Notice Paper first.

Mr. Silverman: I was deported first.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale have expressed anxieties about Galvao, as did the right hon. Member for Smethwick. I must be frank with the Committee. I do not believe in repeating things which I have already said and, therefore, I have little to add to what I have said on the Adjournment on 13th June and what I have said since in answer to Questions. It is material for us to bear this point in mind. There is the so-called "right of asylum", but it is much more a right on the part of the Government to grant asylum than a right on the part of the alien to have it. It is a matter of discretion, which is exercised by the Secretary of State.
It has always been the case that the Secretary of State, in exercising that discretion, bears in mind not only the danger to the life and limb or liberty of the person who applies, but also other factors which may be material. In this

case, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considered that it was material to bear in mind that Captain Galvao wished to use this country as a base for insurrection against another Power which happens to be a N.A.T.O. ally. I know that hon. Members do not agree with that point of view, but that is the reason for the decision and I have nothing to add about it.

Mr. Fletcher: What about Sweden and Norway?

Mr. Renton: I am answering for the Home Secretary. It is no part of my duty to answer for the actions of other Governments. All I can do is to give our reason, and that I have done.

Mr. M. Foot: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the establishment of N.A.T.O. has altered the traditions of this country about political asylum?

Mr. Renton: There is no question of our tradition of political asylum having been altered. The point is that it was never an absolute right to come here.
There are some people in the position of Captain Galvao, who was not able to go to his own country. Indeed, we are told that his life might have been in jeopardy had he done so. It is very fortunate for him that when he first applied he was in a country which was willing to accept him. Other countries are willing to accept him. What we have to consider is whether, in the circumstances of having a N.A.T.O. ally, we are prepared to allow this country to be used for the purposes of insurrection against that ally; and we are not. There is no question of our having altered our laws or practice relating to political asylum.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that there is one right of asylum for people from N.A.T.O. countries and another right of asylum for people not from N.A.T.O. countries?

Mr. Renton: No. There is the case of a Portuguese from East Africa to whom a right of asylum was given the other day.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again, but he will agree that this is a very important matter. We all


accept that the right of asylum is the right of the Government to grant; it is not the right of the refugee to receive. What we are talking about is the fact that in the United Kingdom this right of the Government to grant asylum has always been exercised on the broadest and most liberal grounds. What we are objecting to is that the grounds have now been limited—indeed, most tragically and catastrophically limited—by what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said. Are we to infer from what he has just said that if Captain Galvao had come to this country from Portugal, instead of from the Argentine, we should have handed him back?

Mr. Renton: I am not saying that at all.

Mr. Silverman: That is what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Mr. Renton: No, I am not saying that. I do not accept that the right of asylum has been limited by the fact that we have certain allies or in any other way. I simply say that the right of asylum has not since the Aliens Act, 1905, which first started any kind of alien control, been absolute, and my right hon. Friend considered it right that it should not be exercised in these circumstances. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can make his view any plainer and I cannot make my view any plainer, so we must just agree to differ about this.

Mr. Fletcher: I shall make my view plainer when I have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ede: I recall the case of Gerhard Eisler, over which I was severely attacked at the time—at first, Eisler flew out of the United States and landed on a steamship belonging to Poland, which put in at Southampton, where he was removed from the vessel. The United States tried to get him extradited, saying that he had committed a certain offence.
I was advised at the time that there were two steps to be taken. First, there was the decision of the court whether he could be extradited and whether the treaty covered the offence that he had committed. If the court decided that he could be extradited on that, there was a duty on me, as Secretary of State, to consider whether he was a political refugee. I have not got the case in front

of me. I did not know that it would be referred to this afternoon or I should have looked it up.
6.45 p.m.
It so happened that the court found that Eisler had not committed an extraditable offence. He had not committed perjury; he had made a false declaration. On that highly technical point the Chief Magistrate of the day decided that Eisler was not extraditable, and, therefore, the second point did not arise. However, I was clearly advised at the time that if it was decided that Eisler was extraditable it would still be my duty, as Secretary of State, to consider whether he was a person to whom I had to grant asylum.

Mr. Renton: Quite frankly, I am not prepared to argue about a case which I have not had the opportunity of studying. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not attempt to deal with that point. I take note of what he said.
There is one other thing that I might say about Captain Galvao. All of us are to some extent at cross purposes in all this. When the matter first arose, Captain Galvao was already in a country—Brazil—in which he had obtained asylum. He applied for a visa, which was then necessary, to come here, and he put forward as his reason for coming not that he wanted political asylum but that he wanted to make a lecture tour. Even when he came here the other day the ground that he put forward was that he wanted to make a lecture tour.
Naturally, in view of the circumstances, and in view of what had been said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in the course of the Adjournment debate, we considered the question of political asylum, but, whether it was based on a desire to come here to lecture or on a political asylum ground, we came to the conclusion that the overwhelming factor was that he could not be admitted on any of those grounds in view of his professed intentions with regard to a N.A.T.O. ally.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is there anything in the N.A.T.O. agreement covering this point?

Mr. Renton: So far as I know, there is nothing of this kind.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why bring it in, then?

Mr. Renton: I generally conclude my reply to debates like this by apologising for not having answered all the points that were raised. I hope that I am not unduly flattering myself, but I do not think that I need to make that apology on this occasion. I think that I have covered every point that has arisen. I am grateful to hon. Gentlemen who have made very constructive contributions.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I would not seek to take part in the general nature of the debate as I have not been here throughout, but I have been listening during the last few minutes to what has been said about the case of Captain Galvao. I, and, I am sure, my hon. Friends, give the Minister of State every support in upholding the decision which has been taken in this case.
What seems to me to be material is what fell from the lips of my hon. and learned Friend, that if Captain Galvao came here he would organise insurrectionist activities. It does not seem to me to be material whether Portugal is a member of N.A.T.O. or a member of any other organisation, or even, as she is, our oldest ally, provided that she is a friendly Power. We could not possibly entertain in this country one of the nationals of a friendly Power of any description if we felt that he would conduct insurrectionist activities.

Mr. S. Silverman: We always have done.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The only people who can come to this country and organise insurrectionist activities are persons in wartime who are operating against nations with whom we are unfriendly and at war.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: General de Gaulle.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Those very words are sufficient for me to agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the decision taken is the right one.

Mr. S. Silverman: The noble Lord has said that we ought not to grant political asylum to any alien who would use his refuge here to pursue insurrectionary activities against his country of origin.

Does he not know that in practically all the cases in which political asylum has ever been granted in this country that has been the situation?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think that this man was not asking for political asylum. He was asking for a visa to come here and indulge in insurrectionary activity, or what the Government deemed to be insurrectionary activity. That is enough to keep him out.
When the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was Home Secretary he prevented a Communist from coming to this country to attend a demonstration or conference at Sheffield, or some other city in the North, on the ground not that the man was a Communist but that he, being a Communist, intended to indulge in collective Communist propaganda with others. That was the ground for the man's exclusion. That case is parallel with that of Captain Galvao. The right hon. Member for South Shields should come over to this side of the Committee and support us.

Mr. Fletcher: The Minister of State has, as he usually does, dealt with the debate in a full and interesting manner. The House is indebted to him for the amiable manner in which he has spoken. He has attempted to deal with most of the points raised, but I cannot say that he has dealt with them all satisfactorily. In fact, in some respects, he has left the position rather more confusing than before.
I shall, therefore, recapitulate the position as I see it, and deal with one incidental matter first—the question about the obligation or not of British subjects to register at hotels. Speaking for myself, I thought this matter was finally dealt with when we discussed the Aliens Order, 1957, which was ventilated in the House and was deliberately introduced as a measure of amelioration of the position of British subjects. I will remind the House of what it said.
It revised the earlier law and drew a distinction for the future between British subjects and aliens. Previously, there had been no such distinction. It introduced a new Article 19, which provides that every person—and that includes British subjects—over the age of 16 who stays at an hotel must inform the owner


of his full name and nationality. He does not have to register in writing but he has to state his name and nationality. If he says, "My name is John Smith and I am a British subject", that is the end of the matter; he has the absolute right to stay there and no one has the right to ask him any further questions.
If, on the other hand, he is an alien, then Article 19 provides that he is obliged on arriving at the premises to produce his passport or registration certificate, to give his full name and address, and to register in writing. It can now at least go out from the Committee that if any British subject wants to stay in an hotel and says that he is a British subject, then that is an end to the question and he has an absolute right to stay there without being pestered as though he were an alien.
I now come to individual cases. I recognise that there is a distinction between the cases of Mr. Schoenman and Captain Galvao. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the decision of the Home Office not to renew the application of Mr. Schoenman, who is Earl Russell's secretary, to stay here for a further period of time. I can see that if the Home Office takes to itself the right to exclude aliens who have committed breaches of the law, and the right to deport aliens in certain circumstances, then there may well be a case for saying that Mr. Schoenman has not produced the same claims for renewal of his visa as several other persons who have lived here without any connection with the law.
I do not press that, however, but I do want to press the case of Captain Galvao. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and others of my hon. Friends who have spoken, and I disagree with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). This seems to me to introduce a question of principle in which the Secretary of State and the Home Office have taken a line which is in violation of the cherished traditions of this House with regard to political asylum. I cannot for the life of me see what N.A.T.O. has to do with it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fletcher: I am glad to hear that. I agree with the Minister of State that it is the right of an alien—one on which this House has always insisted—to claim asylum if he is persecuted in his country of origin. If he is opposed to the régime because it is tyrannous, and is unable to go home without being persecuted and imprisoned, he has the right to come here or go to Sweden or to Norway or to any other country which he may choose.
We have always claimed to uphold that right and to exercise the privilege and obligation of giving such people asylum—giving them the right, not, as the Minister of State said, to preach insurrection but to state their case before a British assembly, to explain the grounds on which they want to accuse their own Government, be it Portuguese, Hungarian or any other, of tyranny, or, as in this case, to tell the British public the facts about Angola.
Here we have a person of great reputation and ability who wants to inform the British public about conditions in Portugal and Angola in a way in which few other people can do. That is something we should give him the right to do in order that this country can be informed about the matter. It is shameful and disgraceful that we should have fallen behind Scandinavian countries and others in denying Captain Galvao the right to come here, although in the nineteenth century we treated Garibaldi and others differently. It is monstrous that we should even be thought of as saying that if he had not been from a N.A.T.O. country he would have been admitted, but because Portugal is a member of N.A.T.O. we will not admit him. How far can one get with that argument?

Mr. Renton: I did not say that.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that it can be said. Suppose Portugal became a member of the Common Market? The right hon. and learned Gentleman began by referring to the Common Market. If we were both in the Common Market we should not then have any right whatever to refuse Captain Galvao's admission. That is my understanding of the position. What absurdity we will get into if that situation arises.
I therefore hope that when Captain Galvao renews his application the Home Office will have second thoughts on this matter and will allow him to come into the country. I say that because the Minister of State started by claiming—and, with the exception of Captain Galvao, he was justified in claiming—that, on the whole, the Home Office administers the aliens legislation in a humane and liberal spirit. Broadly speaking, that is true. It is merely because of the one or two exceptions which arise to point the rule that we are so incensed. These exceptions raise a serious matter of principle.
I have said on previous occasions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said today, that we welcome these annual opportunities of criticising the administration of the Home Office with regard to aliens and for making suggestions for improvements, which we have done over the years since 1948. It is very largely because of these debates and suggestions made in various quarters that there is now a more humane and liberal operation of the Act than that which existed a few years ago.
7.0 p.m.
It is because of this annual survey that the Minister has been able to give us a number of figures, in which we were all interested, indicating the number of aliens who, until recently, were liable for registration, but who are no longer so liable, and the number who, until recently, were subject to deportation at the ipse dixit of the Home Office, without any appeal, and who now have a right to present their case to the Chief Magistrate at Bow Street, with the result that there has been a substantial fall in the number deported.
All these liberalising measures are very satisfactory. Whereas some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who, unfortunately, could not be here to-day but who has previously taken part in these debates, have urged that the aliens legislation should be placed on a permanent basis, it is of value to have these annual debates, although from time to time it has been suggested that it might be tidier if the

legislation were on a permanent basis and no longer treated as purely temporary.
However, it does not lie in the mouth of the Minister of State to claim credit for that, because we cannot discuss the mere temporary renewal of these powers without at the same time remembering that the Government are also asking for much wider powers to control immigration from the Commonwealth. The last thing I want to do is to anticipate tomorrow's debate, but in considering whether this Bill should be renewed for a year, it is relevant to bear in mind that tomorrow the Government are to ask for power to limit immigration from the Commonwealth for a minimum period of five years, without any opportunity during that time for the House to criticise how that immigration control is administered, even though it will obviously present much greater problems and cause many more headaches and heartaches for more members of the Commonwealth then the numbers involved in alien immigration control.
I ask the Minister to explain how it is consistent to say that power to control the immigration of aliens should be limited to one year, while at the same time the Government ask for sweeping powers to control immigration from the Commonwealth for five years.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Hon. Members can amend the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: We probably shall, but we are now dealing with this Measure.
What is more odd is the Minister's reason for pointing to the advantages of having this Bill as a purely temporary measure. He said that one of the reasons for having this Measure renewed every year and why it should not be embodied in permanent legislation was that very soon we might have to consider the position of the countries of the Common Market and that, if the Common Market negotiations came to fruition, the countries of the Treaty of Rome would have various rights which they would not have if the aliens law were embodied in permanent legislation.

Mr. Renton: I said that it would not be possible for us to formulate permanent legislation dealing with aliens until we knew what position would emerge as


a result of the negotiations for entering the Common Market.

Mr. Fletcher: If the negotiations about the Common Market are brought to fruition—and the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South and many of my hon. Friends object to them, although the Prime Minister hopes that they will materialise—in all probability the result will be that people from Common Market countries will have rights in connection with coming to this country which they would not have if our aliens law were embodied in permanent legislation. They would have rights over and above those of Commonwealth citizens whose existing rights will be taken away by the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill which the House is to discuss tomorrow.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member is in a great muddle about this. Spokesmen for the Opposition have repeatedly said in the last hour or so that they welcome these annual occasions when these matters are discussed. Let us keep it as it is. That suffices for the Common Market negotiations. If the hon. Member and his hon. Friends amend tomorrow's Bill, that will put it under the same limit. He cannot complain about the situation as it is.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not at all confused, and I hope that the noble Lord is not. I hope that I shall have the support of the noble Lord in saying that we shall be in a very unsatisfactory position unless the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill is amended in such a way that Commonwealth subjects are not placed in a position worse than that of aliens. If the terms of that Bill as at present—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is on somewhat dangerous ground. It is not out of order to draw the contrast between the two Measures, but when the hon. Member goes on to details about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, as he seemed to be doing in the sentence which he just began, he begins to move out of order. I am sure that one or two of his earlier sentences were out of order. I hope that he will manage to keep within the appropriate confines.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that this is a subject in which the borderline between what is in and what is out of order is difficult to draw. I thought that you had drawn the line exactly, Mr. MacPherson, and that I had made the point with the assistance of the noble Lord and that between us we had shown the incongruity between the provisions of the Bill which we shall be discussing tomorrow and the grounds on which the Minister was appearing to take some credit for asking that this Measure should be renewed for twelve months and not embodied in permanent legislation.
I thought it important to make that paint because it is very difficult in the context of this aliens legislation not to bear in mind that tomorrow we shall be embarking, for the first time, on a new phase in which we shall have to consider both immigration from the Commonwealth and what may happen if we join the Common Market.
There was one matter with which the Minister did not deal entirely satisfactorily. It was our plea, made this year as previously, that some recognition should be given to those aliens who, having obtained a permit to work and live here, after a period of years, three or two, or one, or whatever was a reasonable period, had established de facto residence here. We felt that after a given time they should have certain rights exempting them from the 1iabilities to deportation and so forth which the Home Office could rightly claim to exercise in respect of aliens generally.
Those were the only two paints which I wanted to raise. I hope that when we review the position of aliens next year we shall have an even more interesting debate, because we shall then be able to consider the position both of aliens and of immigrants from the Commonwealth.

Mr. Ede: The Minister of State said that Captain Galvao was a person not very friendly to a country with which we are united in the N.A.T.O. Treaty. I have taken the opportunity to look at the Extradition Act, 1870, which deals with the handing over of criminals. Section 3 (1) reads:
A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the offence in respect of which his surrender is demanded is one of a political character …


There is a duty that he shall not be surrendered.
The Section continues:
… or if he prove to the satisfaction of the police magistrate or the court before whom he is brought on habeas corpus, or to the Secretary of State, that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character.
I accept the Minister of State's view that he could not give an answer straight away, but, so far from the right of asylum being inherent in the person who wants to come here, there is a duty on the Secretary of State to grant asylum if he is convinced that the accusation is of a political character.

Mr. Renton: I am familiar with the Extradition Act to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, but I must point out that we have not so far treated Captain Galvao as a fugitive offender.

Mr. M. Foot: I want to comment briefly on the replies which the Minister has made to some cases which I raised at the beginning of the debate. The replies were extremely unsatisfactory, but it would be churlish to deny that in some other parts of his speech he made announcements which were extremely welcome to us. We welcome very much what he said about efforts to abolish passports and about the Government's action on World Refugee Year. There were some parts of his speech which we regard as satisfactory. That merely proves how objective we are and how objective is the manner in which we approach these debates.
I was somewhat alarmed by the way in which he gave figures to us. He gave them in detail. There were 384 miscellaneous undesirables kept out of this country last year. I cannot understand why the Home Office lumps together criminals and security risks. I do not see why they should be in the same category. If we were given a list in which there were seven or eight different categories, I think that at least a distinction should be drawn between criminials and security risks.
7.15 p.m.
Most of the persons with whom we are concerned and who wish to come to this country for political reasons come under

the very broad heading of so-called security cases. I hope that in future when the Home Office gives these figures it will distinguish carefully between those who are criminals and those who may be regarded as political criminals, because there is a very great distinction between the two categories, although the Home Office does not seem to draw it very carefully under its present definition.
I want to comment on the Minister's reply on two cases, the first being that of Mr. Schoenman. As I understand it, what the Home Office is saying is that the reason why it will not continue his permit is that he has been thought to be engaged in organising attempts to break the law.

Mr. Renton: Admitted to be.

Mr. Foot: Has he been convicted of an attempt or was he dealt with under the Act of 1361, which is rather different from someone committing an offence? The Act of 1361 requires people to give assurances that they will not commit an offence in the future. Moreover, everyone knows that the Act of 1361 is an absurdity. It was introduced to deal with entirely different circumstances. It is a ridiculous anachronism. Apparently the reason why the Home Office is refusing to extend this person's permit is that he committed an offence—although that is not the correct wording; he refused to give assurances under that Act, which everybody regards as an absurd anachronism. These seem to me extremely feeble grounds on which to withdraw the permit from Mr. Schoenman.
In any case, whatever hon. Members feel about it, this was pre-eminently a case in which the Home Office should have exercised some generosity. Although the Americans have the advantage over us in some respects in conducting their alien laws, in the sense that people can make appeals, in other respects this country has an advantage, and it would have been much wiser for the Home Office to exercise some magnanimity in this case. The exercise of magnanimity is not always the exercise of wisdom, but why not exercise it here instead of insisting on applying the law when the ground on which it is done is the apparent failure of Mr. Schoenman to abide by the Act of 1361?
I turn to the case of Captain Galvao, which I agree raises much bigger and


broader principles involving the whole of our attitude towards those who wish either to seek asylum in this country or to come here to give lectures. I do not think that much time need be wasted in drawing the distinction between the two. Originally Captain Galvao wanted to come here to give lectures. The Minister says that the reason Captain Galvao was denied a visa in the first place was his professed intentions towards a N.A.T.O. ally. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) quite rightly said that N.A.T.O. has nothing to do with it. But the noble Lord is in favour of excluding anybody from this country who seeks to come here with professed insurrectionist intentions towards a friendly nation of any kind. I thought that the noble Lord was a much better Liberal, or at least a better Whig, than that, because under his definition he would destroy the whole principle of political asylum which this country has maintained for years. In every important case of a person who sought political asylum in this country it has been precisely because he wanted to stir up an insurrection in one way or another. That is why he had to leave his own country and why he came here. The noble Lord would destroy the whole of this tradition by the principles which he lays down.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not the hon. Member realise that there is a distinction between asylum and stadium? There is a distinction between coming here and keeping quiet and coming here and going into the arena and organising a lot of insurrectionist activities.

Mr. Foot: If the noble Lord had been here at the beginning of the debate he would have heard me dispose of that distinction by quoting what the Minister said in the debate which we had on Captain Galvao in January, for he said that he did not want to draw a distinction between a person coming here and having the right to say things when he got here.
It would be a monstrous derogation of the principle of political asylum if we said that we were prepared to let people come to this country as long as they kept their mouths shut when they got here. That would not have established this great liberal tradition throughout our history. Does the

noble Lord think that Garibaldi came here to keep his mouth shut or that Mazzini came here in order to be absolutely silent? Many of them came here for one main objective, because here in this country they could say things which they were denied the right to say elsewhere. That is the glory of this country. That is the glory of the principle of political asylum. I am sure that the noble Lord when he thinks about it will wish to retract, because to denounce that whole principle and go back on it would be a very sad action, even if it is only the noble Lord who is preaching it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What about Karl Marx?

Mr. Foot: It goes back even earlier than that. It has been said that most of the troubles started with the beginning of the Christian religion. Christ was, perhaps, the first heretic. A great deal of trouble was started then, too. If this country had excluded Karl Marx, be would perhaps have gone somewhere else in any case.
The noble Lord has to decide whether he believes in freedom or not. If he believes in freedom, he must say, "I must allow opinions, however objectionable I may find them, to be expressed". He has now denounced the tradition and said, "If I do not like somebody's opinion, or if he is a potential source of danger in the future, he must be suppressed". We do not have to argue any further with the noble Lord. He has abandoned altogether the traditions of freedom for which this country is supposed to stand in this respect.
The Home Office still claims that it has not gone so far as that. It says that it has kept Captain Galvao out because of his professed intentions towards a N.A.T.O. ally. If Captain Galvao had come to this country straight from Portugal, what would we have done? Would the Home Office have decided to send him back to Portugal? It would certainly have offended against the principle enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) if it had done that, but would the Government really have done it? Would they have sent him back to serve out the rest of his sixteen years' sentence in a Portuguese gaol? It appears


from their answers that they might have done, because they say that we must not allow somebody into this country who is going to preach against the interests of our N.A.T.O. allies.
The Home Office has been more generous than this in other cases. There have been quite a number of other cases in which it has not done this. This is to its credit, but it makes it all the worse. The Home Office are not showing any generosity in the case of Captain Galvao, although in this country at present there are a number of Algerians who are stating to the British people their case for a free Algeria. Before Mr. Bourguiba became Prime Minister of Tunis, he visited this country. He is regarded as one of the statesmen of the world. He came here at a time when he was bitterly opposed to the policies being pursued by our French N.A.T.O. ally. He behaved very well. He came over here to lecture and do all the things which the noble Lord would have stopped him doing. He came here to say why he wanted a change of régime in Tunis. There are other people allowed in this country. I am very glad that they are allowed here. They are people who are allowed to come here and state why they think that the policy of our French N.A.T.O. ally in Algeria is an offence.
If it is proper for persons to come here and criticise in the strongest possible terms the policy being pursued by our French N.A.T.O. ally, why should special favour be shown to Portugal, because that is what it comes to? One of the most sinister aspects of this, as I said earlier—the hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal fully with this—is that it was done under the guidance of the Foreign Office. I do not believe that it is any business of the Home Office in dealing with any of these questions to ask what the Foreign Office thinks about it. The Foreign Office has nothing to do with it. The question whether we are to grant political asylum to foreigners or allow them to come here to lecture depends on our view of principles which this country wishes to sustain. It does not depend on the convenience of our foreign policy, particularly when it happens to be a foreign policy—this makes it all

the worse—which, so far from being expedient, is causing us the most grievous damage all over the world.
It is the stupidity of it, for one thing. On the whole, a great deal can be said for British colonial policy over recent years. We have shown that we wish to develop independence in the countries of Africa. We have on the whole a fairly good record. The Government in their stupidity and the Foreign Office advising the Home Office, in its even deeper stupidity, says, "Do not allow this chap Galvao in because it will help us with Portugal if we do not let him in", not recognising the great damage it does to the reputation of this country all over Africa.
In five or ten years' time Captain Galvao will be acclaimed as one of the men who have established freedom in Angola. He will be a hero in Africa. How does the hon. and learned Gentleman think the Home Office will look when the history books are written? The Home Office will appear as mean, pusillanimous and squalid in dealing with this problem. Each answer the hon. and learned Gentleman gave only made it worse. There is one way—a very simple way—in which the Government can remedy the situation. It would not cause a catastrophe. It probably would not make a scrap of difference to the speed at which the revolution takes place in Portugal—and every good democrat must pray for a revolution in Portugal. We want to see that tyrannical régime overthrown. But it will not make all that difference whether Captain Galvao comes here or not. The Home Office should say, "We think we were wrong. We will now make up our own mind instead of consulting Lord Home about it. We will make up our own mind and admit that perhaps we were wrong. Let us restore the better tradition of this country. Let Captain Galvao come here." That is the one way in which the Home Office could wipe away this wretched stain from its record.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. William Hannan: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 9 and 10.
The debate on the subject covered by this Amendment is an annual event, which has been described more than once as an old story. We hope and pray


that tonight will be the last occasion on which we have to debate it. The Act which we wish to delete from the Schedule gave power to local authorities to grant exemption to children aged 13 and over in Scotland to assist in gathering in the potato harvest. The knowledge that such a practice has continued in recent years came as a shock to many hon. Members who have participated in our debates, because the practice has not obtained for years in England and Wales. Some of my hon. Friends who have taken part in these debates have told us some of the reasons why England and Wales have not required the assistance of children in the potato harvest.
Our main objection has been on educational grounds. Taking young children of these tender years away from school and interrupting their education is an action for which society will have to pay in the years ahead. This is particularly so at a time when most progressive countries and progressive peoples recognise that at 15 years of age, when 80 per cent. of the children leave school, there is a great need to encourage them to enter into further technical education if Britain is to play her part in the future.
7.30 p.m.
The Amendment is designed to give the Opposition a further opportunity of questioning and probing the Government about their intentions and to discover what is the position to date. We know from the record that the Under-Secretary of State in last year's debate made a statement which encouraged us to believe that after the harvest in 1962 this practice would, thereafter, cease. By moving this Amendment we have given the Government an opportunity, if they so desire, either to justify the continuation of the Measure or to restate their attitude towards it.
This practice has been long discarded in England and Wales and it is important that all children, including those whose minds are judged to be of a second-rate character—and I do not agree that there are only some minds capable of university education and that it is only to that type of mind that we should pay attention—should be considered as being of equal value to society. But if there are differentiations and we are going to accept that this type

of work should only be followed by certain children under 15 then, of course, it would mean that we do not take education seriously.
One of our greatest objections to the practice is that, for the most part, the parents of such children are not of the type to be ambitious about their children's future and it therefore devolves on others to try to protest these children from some of the practices which most countries have left behind. There is a dangerous tendency that those who are not ambitious on their children's behalf may not necessarily object to the practice, but it must be remembered that no child can afford to interrupt his or her education.
The Act was passed in difficult days and in spite of the opinions of local authorities which, at that time, did not want to see the children's education interrupted. But in the immediate postwar years food production had a high priority. I understand that it came even before housing. But those days have been left far behind. I realise that food production is still extremely important but the priority, the degree of importance, and the circumstances have changed to such an extent that the Government would be right and justified in now disposing of this Measure.
The figures have been declining over the years, and while I do not wish to delay the Committee, a few figures may be of interest. In 1949, 47,000 such children were exempted from school. In 1955 the figure was still 45,000. In 1957 it dropped to 22,000, and two years ago my hon. Friends and I were gratified to find that it had gone down to about half that of 1957—to 10,900. I appreciate that when asking for the number of children exempted it is difficult for the Under-Secretary to supply the exact figure because it is close to the harvesting period and an exact figure is difficult to provide.
However, my hon. Friends and I are initiating this debate in order to demonstrate our opposition to the continuance of the Measure and to give the Government an opportunity to state their intentions and to have on the record a categorical assurance that it will come to an end next year and that no attempt will be made to re-enact it. We recognise


that for this Government that may be difficult because we consider that they are dedicated to procrastination and that circumstances, however feeble, may prompt them even yet to change their mind. It is only fair to remind the Committee of what was said by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the then Under-Secretary, as far back as 1959. He said:
Accordingly, I can tell the Committee that we propose to seek the approval of Parliament to the re-enactment of this Measure now and for the next two years—that is, for the next three harvests—but not after the 1962 harvest … With that assurance and the certainty of the ending of the scheme within a measurable time, running down from the notified exemptions of roughly 12,000 at the rate of about 5,000 a year over the next three years, we hope to end the scheme in 1962."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 509–10.]
As I said last year, that statement started with an assurance, almost a certainty, but ended with a hope, and that, for the purposes of the Opposition, is not quite sufficient.
What has happened? Has the aim of the rundown of 5,000 exemptions each year taken place? In his reply last year the Under-Secretary was still talking about intentions. He said:
It is our intention to ask the House next year to renew this law once again to cover the 1962 harvest. That will be the last harvest for which releases will be given, and the last time that the Government will ask for this expiring law to be revived. After that, it will finally be allowed to expire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 452.]
To many people those words might seem emphatic, but, and some of my hon. Friends are disturbed by the opening phrase:
It is our intention …
Will the Under-Secretary take this opportunity of saying that this is, to use a popular music hall expression, "positively my last appearance at the Box on this Act." Or perhaps he will say, rather like the statement of another famous gentleman: "This is the last territorial claim I have to make." We shall be pleased to hear him utter those words. I have no need to develop this argument further, for I have sufficient trust in the hon. Gentleman to know that he is trying his best, but, for purposes of the record, I hope that he will utter the words we wish to hear—that this Measure is going

to expire and that he will not require to come to the Box to ask for a further renewal of it next year.

Sir James Duncan: This subject is a hardy annual, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said, and it appears, from what the Minister said last year, that this is possibly the Minister's last appearance at the Box to speak about it.
I must say a few words about my experience of the development of machinery to take the place of children. The argument has always been that the farmers did not want the children if they could get a machine to lift the potatoes equally well. I gave some examples last year and said then that I was bitterly disappointed that the whole might of the engineering industry had not yet invented a machine that could lift potatoes satisfactorily.
This year I have seen three different kinds of machines working and have heard of another, but the answer is the same. In spite of all the ingenuity of our engineering industry we have not yet got a machine to lift potatoes satisfactorily. It may be on the way. Farmers of my acquaintance now say that in five years' time we shall probably have one. Many ingenious people are thinking up either improvements to existing machines or new lines of approach altogether, but the solution has not yet been found.
My experience this year has been that on good soil, without stone, fairly flat, and in good weather conditions, there are machines that will work. Most of them work slowly, too slowly, but even if they work slowly I think that farmers, by adapting their harvesting methods, could make them work. The problem therefore remains as to what to do about lifting potatoes on hilly land, and stony land, and in bad weather conditions, and here I must give the Government a warning. In spite of the weather potato lifting has not been too bad this year. We seem to have got in the crop very well. Last year, conditions were appalling and we had to go back to the old spinner to get the crop out of the mire. That might happen next year or the year after. What will the Government do then?
This problem concerns only part of Scotland—Angus, Perthshire, Fife and the Lowlands. We farmers do not want to be entirely in the hands of the merchants, who have gangs of men and married women who are more or less regularly employed. The farmers do not want to be in the hands of the merchants, because if they allow the merchants to lift the crop they are virtually at the merchants' mercy as to price.
Although this may be the last appearance of the Minister on this subject, I must warn the Government that, agriculturally, we have not yet got the answer to machine lifting. We may get that answer in four or five years' time, but, meanwhile, the Government ought to have a reserve plan. If we were to get bad weather next year the Government might have to do something in a hurry to make sure that this important crop in these counties of Scotland was harvested.
I hope that engineers will really put their backs into it during the coming year and produce a satisfactory machine. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Maryhill on the educational aspect; on the other hand, we have here a practical agricultural problem, and that is why I give this warning to the Government.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: In our debate on this subject last year I had the pleasure of following the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), when I expressed several reservations based on much the same grounds as those just mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). Those reservations resulted largely from the weather conditions of last year. I think that everyone in the agricultural community agrees that the weather last summer and autumn, and right up to Christmas, was quite very bad.
It is difficult to say what an average year is, but I think that this year's potato lifting has probably been an average one, not nearly so good as that in 1953—in which year I myself lifted the whole of my 60-acre potato crop with a harvester—and nothing like as bad as it was a year ago. On the other hand, it is generally admitted that labour

has never been more difficult to get than it has been this year. When farmers have wanted gangs of 20 people they have had to make do with gangs of eight or nine. That has made the job difficult.
The present costs of lifting an acre of potatoes by hand labour can be very little short of £11, but as in potato harvester trials the costs have been less than £5 an acre there is every possible incentive to invest in a machine if one can be convinced that it is satisfactory. Many growers have invested in a couple of potato harvesters to handle 50 or 60 acres and, given reasonable conditions, two harvesters will lift the three acres a day that one would expect a gang of 20 pickers to handle.
Investment in a machine is no obstacle whatever, and my misgivings are that much less, I freely admit, not only because of the better weather conditions this year but also because I believe that the engineers are on the verge of a new break-through to the sorting of potatoes with a harvester by electronic means. It may not be long before we see something on those lines although, at the moment, the major difficulty does not lie in the actual physical separation of the potatoes from soil or stones, but in the machines travelling across the ground in excessively wet conditions.
I think that it would still be extremely inadvisable for a potato grower to put away his diggers and his baskets, or whatever he uses, but I still think that a machine is a worth-while investment. I have great confidence that not only will the ingenuity and skill of engineers give us a practical proposition before long but, above all, that there is nothing like sheer necessity for making a machine work.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has reminded us, when we debated this subject last year, continuing the annual sequence of debates that has been pursued for so many previous years, I expressed the hope that that would be both my first and penultimate speech on the theme. I do not think that that hope will be disappointed. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan)


stressed the point of this theme, because there seemed a slightly funereal note in the hon. Member's reference to my last appearance.
As to the misgivings expressed about the use of the word "intention" in previous statements, I can only point out that everything is an intention until it becomes an act. Today I think I can give the hon. Member for Maryhill the assurances which he wanted when the subject was raised. This is the third occasion on which those assurances have been given. I think that after this year's renewal of the Act it will sink below the surface and will be seen no more. I repeat for the record the words that I used last year and which my predecessor used the year before that, namely, that the 1962 harvest will be the last harvest at which releases will be given. I hope that with that assurance, the Committee will accept the principle established, I think, by Humpty-Dumpty, that what I say three times is true.
We are greatly encouraged by the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and for South Angus on the subject of the development of agricultural machinery. The development of machinery continues to be one of the most important items in the research work done at the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering in Bedfordshire, and hon. Members may be sure that the same applies to the work which is being done in Scotland at our substation at Calder. I can confirm reports of the work that has been done. There have been successful laboratory tests of some ingenious electrical gadget which seems to be capable of distinguishing between a potato and a stone and a clod.
I do not think I need delay the Committee by adding much more because I think what I have already said covers the subject. I would say one word on the sequence of figures which have been given. Figures relating to notifications of exemptions are the easiest to deal with for purposes of comparison. Last season in 1960 about 11,600 exemptions were notified. This figure included 3,600 for one week only, to meet the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for

Edinburgh, West referred. Measured by even our standards, this was a year of unprecedentedly bad weather. The number of exemptions notified in 1961 was 5,250.
To run through it again, the exemptions notified in 1951 were 45,000; in 1955 just under 32,000; in 1958, 17,600; in 1959, 11,800; in 1960, 8,000, excluding the emergency 3,600. This season the number is 5,250 in comparison with 8,000 last year. The 1962 harvest is still to come, and after that the arrangement will finish. With the repetition of the previous assurances, I hope hon. Members will see fit to withdraw their Amendment.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) will be delighted to have heard the assurance that this is positively the last appearance of the Under-Secretary of State at the Box on this subject. We have had many debates on these matters, and in every such debate we have discussed the practicability and the difficulty of getting machines to do this work. Hopes have always been expressed that in a few years' time a suitable machine will be devised.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that it might be four or five years before we get a machine that will do this job. I remember very well the introduction of this Measure. I remember the discussions which took place with the engineers and the farmers. Each year from 1947 to 1951 I went to see the machines. I also saw the children harvesting the potatoes. In 1947 when the Act first came into operation the hope was expressed that within three years we would have a machine to do the job. That is why we made the Act run for three years, subject to continuation thereafter.
I realise that it has proved more difficult to get a satisfactory machine than was envisaged in 1947. The hon. Member for South Angus also said that farmers were reluctant to pass this work over to the merchants. The merchants use gangs of married women. The hon. Gentleman said they were employed more or less full-time. My experience is less than his, but I should have thought they were employed more or less full-time during the month of October but not throughout the whole year by the merchants.
We in Lanarkshire do not grow so many potatoes as are grown in Angus or in Fife, but we grow quite a lot. We also have quite a lot of married women working with the potatoes. We still have some Irish workers employed on this task, As a matter of fact, there is a large hutted encampment near by my old home which is regularly used by Irish workers brought over by the potato merchants, and it is only fair to say that the potato merchants have been a little more successful in recruiting adult labour to do this work than the farmers have been.
If the farmers require to pass this work over to the merchants after the 1962 harvest, I think that this sacrifice on the part of the farmers will be more easy to wear by the community than the continuation of this practice of exempting selected children from school each October in order to do this work.
When the Under-Secretary was speaking the impression may have been created that 1962 would definitely be the last season in which children would be employed for harvesting. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not so and that it would be erroneous to draw any such conclusions from his speech. There will continue to be many children employed on potato harvesting. In Ayrshire at present I believe that a great proportion of the early potatoes are harvested during the children's summer holidays. The Under-Secretary will know whether this is true or not.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): A few.

Mr. Fraser: The acreage of early potatoes is small in comparison with the main crop in October.

Sir J. Duncan: It depends on the harvest and how early it is.

Mr. Fraser: I suppose it depends on the season, how early and how heavy the harvest is. However, children are employed in that part of the country during the normal summer holidays, harvesting potatoes—I agree, with other workers. But, likewise, in the areas where the potato crop is largely main crop and where there is a huge acreage, it has been the practice over a number of years to have what are called potato holidays, and, as far as I know, this practice still continues.

Sir J. Duncan: That is one of the troubles. Perthshire has already decided not to have potato holidays next year.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: It has been the practice up to now, I understand. In any case if Perthshire, with its quite considerable acreage, can see the wisdom of not having the potato holidays next year, hon. Members must not be surprised that those of us who come from those parts of the country with a much smaller potato acreage are unwilling that the children in those areas should continue to be exempted for the purpose of the potato harvest. In any event, it is clear that children will continue to be employed in some cases on this work. It is a good thing, however, to terminate this Act.
In the early years of this Act it was possible to ensure that children were drawn from the senior secondary schools as well as from the junior secondary schools. That was the case even in the large cities. Though there were no potatoes to be harvested in the City of Glasgow, large numbers of Glasgow children were sent to different parts of Scotland, and were billeted there during the potato harvest season. Great care was taken to ensure that the children were the children of poorer parents, and that the children who were leaving school at 15 years of age, in any case, were not going to do all the work.
I remember that the Rector of Glasgow High himself took a great interest in seeing that Glasgow High made its proper contribution. Only he did something that not many of the other headmasters were aware of. He sought to arrange that the Glasgow High children were sent to the wettest parts of Scotland to do the potato harvesting, because they all took their books with them, and he wanted them to have this time off to get ahead with their school work, notwithstanding that they were exempted for that period. He realised that the children from other schools wanted to earn as much money as they possibly could, and sometimes there were complaints that there was too much wet weather and that not enough hours were worked. He did not mind his boys and girls, many of whom were over the age of 15, not earning as much as he wanted the children from the


Gorbals and Bridgeton schools to earn during this period.
We are delighted that this is the last year in which we shall be asked to approve this Act. We are delighted to see that the figures are down considerably in 1961 on those of 1960 and that 5,250 was the number required in 1961. If that figure is further reduced, as I know is the Under-Secretary's intention, in 1962, it would appear to many of us that by 1963 it should be possible to have the potatoes gathered without the use of children being made available under the Act.

Mr. Hannan: I understand that Ministers, both senior and junior, when they know that protests are to be made, make agreeable noises in response to these representations. We have had a little more than that tonight. We have had a very good reply from the Under-Secretary—one which we, of course, accept entirely—and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 19 to 29.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir H. Legge-Bourke): I do not know if it would be for the convenience of the Committee to consider taking together this and the next Amendment to leave out lines 30 to 38.

Mr. Fraser: I would not object, but the names down to the following Amendment are those of hon. Members who are not in the Chamber at the present time, and I imagine that it would be very inappropriate for me to say that I would agree on their behalf; nor, I think, is the Minister here. I think that it would be better if we took the Scottish Amendment by itself.

The Temporary Chairman: In that case I ask the hon. Member to speak to his Amendment.

Mr. Fraser: This Act which is being continued is the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us in the course of his reply how this Act is working and to what extent the tribunals set up under it are

being asked to adjudicate on the rent of furnished accommodation.
I notice from the Explanatory Memorandum that we still have twenty-nine tribunals in Scotland. My impression is that some of them are not being called on to do very much under the Act. They are not having applications made to them for determination of a fair rent as provided for under the 1943 Act. I believe that the Act was brought in to extend to the tenants of furnished accommodation some of the protection, if not all of the protection, that was enjoyed by tenants of unfurnished accommodation.
Since then we have had the Rent Act, 1957, and it is a fact that a great many occupants of unfurnished accommodation do not now have even the little bit of protection that is given to the tenants of furnished accommodation under the provisions of the 1943 Act. I have said that I do not think that these tribunals are being kept very busy. I believe that in many parts of Scotland the Act has virtually become a dead letter. I wondered why this was so. I sought to get an answer over the weekend. I was told by quite a lot of people in local government whom I consulted that the truth is that not many people in Scotland are aware that they have this kind of protection; that is to say, that no matter what rent is asked for furnished accommodation, tenants are not aware that they can refer the matter to a tribunal set up under the 1943 Act, and get determination on the rent.
I must say, however, that on probing this a little deeper I got the impression that where the protection afforded by the Act was known among the tenants of furnished accommodation, the tenants were none the less very unwilling to make any application to the tribunal because, even though they might get a determination from the tribunal which had the result of greatly reducing the rent payable for that accommodation, the poor tenant who made the application did not enjoy security of tenure and very soon afterwards was given notice to go.
True enough, he left accommodation which, if let as it had previously been with the same amount of furniture, had a rent determined by the tribunal and the landlord could not ask for any higher rent from a succeeding tenant. But this was little consolation to the tenant who


had already lost his accommodation and who probably, after going round looking for a place elsewhere, might very well be asked to pay more in his next place than the amount he had protested against in the premises he had left.
Because of this kind of disappointment with the operation of the Act, people living in the relevant parts of Scotland, mainly in our congested towns and cities, have tended to ignore the protection, such as it is, afforded by the 1943 Act.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the proposition I have just made. During the weekend, I heard of a few cases when I was in Bridgeton. I have in mind particularly a woman who came into the election committee rooms when I was there. I am not saying this for the purpose of the election in Bridgeton, because, of course, it will be over and the votes will be counted before anything I say can possibly be reported in the Scottish newspapers. I think it important that one should realise how some of our fellow citizens have to live.
This woman who came into the election committee rooms was very distressed, wondering when she would have a council house or accommodation provided by Glasgow Corporation. She said that she, with her husband and family, were living in one room which measured 9 ft. by 9 ft. Someone went back to the place to see whether she was telling the truth and returned to say that she was. Nine ft. by 9 ft. was the size of the room. The landlord had provided a plain wooden table and two plain wooden chairs, and he called the place a furnished house. He charged £2 13s. a week for this accommodation, plus a payment for electricity, plus a payment for gas, plus a payment for washing out the close.
The woman told us that, after she had paid all this bill, including the 1s. for washing out the close, she had asked the landlord why she had to pay the 1s. since she had washed out the close. The landlord said that he would give her 6d. back, and he did. But he had collected the 1s. from all the other tenants in the building for washing out the close.
Clearly, this woman was not interested in the protection she might be given under the 1943 Act because she knew that, if she had the rent considered by the tribunal and it was reduced to a more

reasonable figure for the accommodation she had, she would have no security of tenure.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How many in the family?

Mr. Fraser: Husband and wife and, I think, two children, and another one expected. A family of that size in a room 9 ft. by 9 ft. is bad enough, but, I am distressed to say, in that particular corner of Glasgow, it is really a very tiny family to be living in one room.
Can the Under-Secretary of State look at the Act again with a view to strengthening it before he continues it for another year? I do not think that anyone will wish to vote for the Amendment. We do not wish to discontinue the Act now, but will the hon. Gentleman, before he has to deal with the continuation of it one year hence, strengthen the Act a little to give some security of tenure to a person like that who might wish to go to the Rent Tribunal and ask for a reduction in rent?
8.15 p.m.
The Act applies only to those areas of Scotland which the Secretary of State determines. It does not apply to the whole of Scotland. Section 1 begins with the words:
Where the Secretary of State is satisfied on representation by, or after consultation with, the council of any county or burgh that it is expedient that the provisions of this Act should have effect in any area 
he may order that the Act shall come into force in that area. In addition to strengthening it, will the hon. Gentleman extend the Act to give the Secretary of State power to decide the areas in which tenants of unfurnished accommodation who are being asked exorbitant rents might apply to a tribunal for the determination of a fair rent?
I hope that he will consider that. He knows the City of Glasgow fairly well, although he probably does not represent the part of the city which has the worn: overcrowding and in which there is the greatest distress among people who live one family to a room, sometimes rather a large family to a room, with no possibility of getting anywhere else to live. Many such people are completely at the mercy of the landlords who can charge what rent they like.
One of the reasons why there is criticism of council rents in Glasgow is that, very often, when people living in these miserable conditions in a single room are able to move away into a corporation house, they pay far less rent and rates for the corporation house than they previously paid for their single room, particularly if it was a furnished room, with no amenities at all in the centre of the city.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to do something to give further protection to tenants, even to tenants of unfurnished accommodation. In any event, does he agree that it is slightly misleading for any of us—this applies to me as well—always to discuss the Act as if it applied only to accommodation made available with furniture? It does not. The Long Title reads:
An Act to make provision with regard to the rent of houses or parts thereof in Scotland let at a rent which includes payment for the use of furniture or for services.
I draw attention to the words "or for services". The Act really does apply to all those unfurnished dwellings in Glasgow which are let with gas and electricity services provided by the landlord and payment for which is included in the rent. There are many such dwellings, but it is not often understood that the Act applies to them.
Section 2 contains similar words:
Where a contract has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been entered into whereby one person … grants to another person … the right to occupy as a resident a house or part of a house situated in an area in which this Act is in force in consideration of a rent which includes payment for the use of furniture or for services …
It is clear that, if the landlord provides a supply of electricity, as he does in houses which are subdivided, with only one meter measuring all the electricity used in the whole house as it originally was, so much per week being charged to each tenant occupying the individual rooms, the dwellings are covered by the provisions of the Act.
I should like the Under-Secretary of State to do his utmost to ensure that the people of Scotland for whom this Act was intended to afford protection, and, since we are continuing it in this Bill, the people for whom we are now legislating to give some protection in the

year ahead, are made aware of the fact that this protection is available to them. I should like him to give us an assurance that he will seek to ensure that the people who take advantage of the Act and make application to the rent tribunal and have a fair rent fixed, will not be thrown on the street by the landlord who has been upset by the tribunal's determination of a fair rent.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I should like briefly to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said. Fortunately, I do not represent a constituency in which there is much furnished accommodation and, therefore, I am little concerned with the operation of rent tribunals. However, it is my firm impression that there are large numbers of people who are entitled to get the protection of these tribunals but who know nothing about them. Also, there are large numbers of people who, even though they know about the tribunals, are frightened to go to them, particularly because they have fears about their security of tenure. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to give us an assurance about how these tribunals are working in Scotland.
The cost of these tribunals in Scotland is significant. I observe that there are 29 tribunals and that the total expenditure on them is only £2,200, which works out at about £75 per tribunal. In England and Wales there are 41 tribunals on which the total expenditure is nearly £105,000, which means that the expenditure on each tribunal is about £2,500 a year. Obviously we must take account of the much larger number of houses in England and Wales compared with the number in Scotland and perhaps, proportionately, a rather higher number of units of furnished accommodation
On the face of these figures, they lead to the conclusion that very much less advantage is taken of the rent control provisions in Scotland than in England. It must be a profoundly unsatisfactory situation that there should be an average expenditure on each of these tribunals in Scotland of less than £100 a year. Many of them cannot be functioning at all. There is a need for them. If the Under-Secretary of State says that the need for them is such that we must continue this legislation, it seems to me that


he is under an obligation to ensure that full advantage is taken of the tribunals. I repeat that I am not in the least satisfied that that is happening in Scotland.
I should like some statistics about the number of people who go to the tribunals, the number of cases in which they are successful and the number of cases in which they are unsuccessful. In particular, I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State that a real effort is being made to get over to people who may be affected by the rent control provisions the fact that the tribunals are available and that they ought to use them to the fullest possible extent in their own interests. That is very important. The figures and my general impression of how the tribunals are working in Scotland represent a pretty serious situation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): It would appear that this Amendment seeks to remove the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, from the provisions of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I appreciate, however, that it is really a probing Amendment and that what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and other hon. Members opposite would really like are a few observations on the working of the Act in Scotland.
The Committee is probably aware that the Act provides for the setting up of rent tribunals in Scotland to fix reasonable rents, first, for furnished accommodation, secondly, for unfurnished accommodation where there are services provided, as the hon. Member for Hamilton stressed, and, thirdly, unfurnished accommodation where there is some sharing—of, for example, the kitchen—with the landlord. There are these three types of accommodation which the Act is intended to cover. Amendments to the scope of the original Act made by the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, provide temporary security of tenure to the applicants under the original Act. One must recognise that this temporary security can be extended.
The 1949 Act also enables the rent tribunal to fix reasonable rents for unfurnished houses which were let for the

first time after September, 1939, and before July, 1957. That is another type of unfurnished accommodation which is covered indirectly by the 1943 Act. A further amendment was made by the Rent Act, 1957, which restricted the operation of the 1943 Act to dwellings of which the rateable value was not more than £40.
For the purpose of the working of the Act of 1943, Scotland is divided into 29 districts, each of which has a separate tribunal to which application to fix a reasonable rent may be made by the landlord, the tenant, or—and this is a quite interesting point—the local authority. I imagine, therefore, that if there were a local scandal there would be nothing to prevent the local authority from taking action. That would meet the difficulty that some tenants might be afraid to take action because they might he thrown out of their accommodation. I should like to make inquiries about the point that the hon. Member for Hamilton raised—obviously it is something which occurs to one's mind—and to write to him to let him know the result of my inquiries.
8.30 p.m.
The hon. Member went on to suggest that tribunals should deal purely with unfurnished lettings in addition to the types already covered by the Act. He asked me to consider that and to try to ascertain whether there appeared to be any undue unfairness. I am certainly prepared to look at the matter and write to him about it. I must say, however, that I do not think there is any requirement for the sort of provision that the hon. Member is seeking, because such evidence as I have shows, as one would expect, that landlords in Scotland have acted in the main in a reasonable and fair manner towards the tenants of decontrolled houses.
This is an alternative explanation to the one that occurred to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who suggested that there were relatively few appeals because the tenants were afraid to use the machinery. I suggest that it may be because the landlords are acting in a reasonable and fair manner.

Mr. Millan: I would not accept that. It is not just a question of tenants being afraid. Sometimes tenants literally do


not know that such machinery is available. Will the hon. Gentleman examine that suggestion?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes. I am glad that the hon. Member has mentioned that. It is something with which I should like to deal later in my speech.
I have made the suggestion that, on the face of it, landlords seem to be acting in the main in a fair and reasonable manner. Proof of this is to be found in the fact that under the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958, during the period from 6th October, 1958, to 31st July, 1961, only 41 applications were made to the Scottish courts for orders for possession in respect of decontrolled houses of over £40 rateable value. Therefore, agreement would seem to be being reached between the landlord and the tenant in most cases and there would seem to be no grounds for suggesting that wider extension is required, as the hon. Member has suggested, or that a gross scandal is being perpetrated.
Further proof of that is that usually when anything of this nature is taking place, one gets inundated with correspondence, not only as a Member of Parliament in a constituency sense but also at the Scottish Office as a Minister. The recent lack of this correspondence is another indication to me that the fears mentioned by the hon. Member are not, perhaps, entirely justified. All these things do not, however, alter the fact that I will, as I have said, look into the matter.
A further sign that might be taken either way—that people are not using this machinery because they do not know or are not using it because they are happy—is the fact that the number of applications to the tribunals have fallen off in recent years. It is not that they have always been low in number, but that there has been a definite falling off.
The hon. Member for Craigton asked for figures. I can give the figures for the last three years, which might be helpful. In the year ended March, 1959, 129 cases were referred; in the year ended March, 1960, 91 cases; in the year ended March, 1961, 80 cases; and in the six months of this year from

April to September, only thirty cases have so far been reported. The hon. Member for Hamilton and the hon. Member for Craigton will suggest that this is proof that the Act is a dead letter; that is what they were suggesting—[Interruption.] At least, they suggested that further publicity should be given to bring the Act to the notice of the public.
The same point was made, as I dare say the hon. Member for Hamilton is aware, in the Second Report of the Council on Tribunals. I am glad to be able to say that we have just carried out a publicity campaign. New posters and explanatory leaflets were distributed to all tribunals, to all local authorities and to all Citizens' Advice Bureaux. It might interest the hon. Member for Hamilton to know that the Town Clerk in his constituency has been particularly helpful in this matter. Every effort has been made to publicise the functions of these tribunals and to bring them to the notice of those most likely to be affected.
The work of the Scottish rent tribunals was recently considered by the Council on Tribunals in its First Report for 1959. The Council said that it had received no complaint about the work of the Scottish tribunals—in fact, the Council was rather more complimentary about the Scottish tribunals than about the English ones—and that so far as it had seen them in action they had been found to be perfectly satisfactory. I think we can agree that this is a very good Report. In fact these tribunals appear to be doing a reasonably good job, admittedly on a modest scale, because the needs do not seem to be, perhaps, quite so large as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I hope that with this explanation the hon. Gentleman may feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: The Under-Secretary of State gives me the impression of being complacent. He has given figures to show the fall-off in the number of appeals which the tribunals have dealt with in the past three years, and from what he has said one would gather that the Scottish Office is quite pleased with the operation of this system of tribunals.
The hon. Gentleman also told us that recently there had been instituted a


publicity campaign, in which posters and leaflets had been issued to the local authorities. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might go a step further in this direction and ask the local authorities to advertise in the local Press, in addition to putting up posters. Some posters can be seen by only a few people. Through an advertisement once a month, say, in a local newspaper, there is a greater possibility of many more people seeing it and knowing the rights to which they are entitled.
I wish to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) on the question of protection. It is all right to say that there is a degree of protection in the Act at present, but I think that it is something like three months in the initial stage, and then there is the requirement to apply for an extension. Consider the possibility of a young married couple with a child living in a furnished room and having to go to the tribunal to appeal against excessive charges by the landlord with whom they are living.
It does, to say the least of it, make conditions quite impossible. To suggest that the tenant in those circumstances can appeal to the tribunal for a further extension is merely aggravating what is already a most terrible set of conditions in which to live, conditions which, I must say, are largely brought about by the housing policy of the Government. To some extent, therefore, the Minister must accept a great deal of responsibility.
Only this afternoon I received a reply from the Secretary of State setting out the gross average annual value of municipal houses in the large burghs in Scotland. This shows that in Fife, in particular, we have a very high gross annual value. When this is related to the values which have been placed on private rented property one can see right away where the landlords of furnished accommodation are having the temptation—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): I did not follow the earlier part of the hon. Member's argument, for my attention was drawn elsewhere, but he does not seem to me

to be in order. This Amendment is concerned with rents and other matters connected with furnished lettings.

Mr. Gourlay: I am trying to draw an analogy, and draw attention to something which is happening in Scotland at present and which is giving the landlords of furnished accommodation an incentive to go even beyond some of the ridiculous charges which they are demanding.
Surely, if local authorities are to be encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman to increase rents to the gross average annual value which has been placed on the houses by the assessors, the right hon. Gentleman is giving an added incentive to these landlords of furnished accommodation still further to increase their charges. That is the point I am trying to make, and I hope that in so doing I am keeping within the rules of order. In addition, the rent policy of the Government has had an adverse effect, too, on the amounts which are being charged by landlords for furnished accommodation.
This brings me to the real scandal behind this Act. In some of the accommodation which is provided, and which is described to a rent tribunal and accepted by the tribunal as being genuine furnished accommodation, one finds only an old, tatty rug in front of the fireplace or a rickety table which the tenants have to discard, or keep outside the house to make room for their own furniture, so that they may live in reasonable conditions.
Those are the very people who, the hon. Gentleman says, have access to the rent tribunal. Many people have no knowledge of how to go about making an application to the tribunal. The average person is scared of having to appeal to a court or a tribunal of any character. Those of us who have contact with members of the public realise how difficult it is for many of them to read and understand a simple form or an instruction because of the language used. As Members of Parliament we often have to give guidance in such cases.
The Under-Secretary should undertake to look at the main provisions of these Acts. As he said earlier, this is a probing Amendment. I suggest that he should do more probing behind the


scenes and find out why so many people are not taking advantage of the tribunals.

Mr. James McInnes: I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and his desire to achieve a more widespread publicity campaign about the provisions of these two Acts, more particularly in Glasgow than anywhere.
As the Under-Secretary recognises, the tendency in Glasgow is for factors and property owners not to rent houses, but to try to sell them. There are now 3,800 empty houses in the city which they refuse to rent. They are looking for purchasers. Many of these houses are being bought by Indians and Pakistanis, who furnish some of them and then let them at exorbitant rents. In the Gorbals area, in particular, Pakistani and Indian landlords are asking exorbitant rents and, in most cases, providing very little furniture. My attention has been drawn recently to a case in Bridgeton. I have been surprised at the lack of knowledge on the part of tenants and citizens generally of their position under these two Acts.
I reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton and I hope that the Under-Secretary will ensure that maximum publicity is given to the provisions of the Acts so that tenants and citizens can appreciate what can be done on their behalf by the tribunals. By so doing, I should like it to be appreciated that we very much condemn the attitude of Pakistani and Indian landlords who are charging exorbitant rents, in some cases as much as £3 to £3 10s. a week. I hope that as a result of publicity there will be an end to that type of case in Glasgow.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I take it that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) is not suggesting that only Indians and Pakistanis charge exorbitant rents. As we know, this practice is characteristic of many people. Unfortunately, there is also the power to evict, and with people in such a position of insecurity as is characteristic of these tenants high rents which we would never hear about might be charged.
I should like a little more detail about how the tribunals are functioning and what information they are unearthing. I should have thought that any report from the tribunals would have told us a variety of things, and that the hon. Gentleman would have been in a position to have told us about them.
A valuable feature of the Act is that the local authority has the power to institute proceedings. How extensively is that power used? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the cases that he has mentioned were brought by local authorities? If the number is considerable, we shall feel that a valuable power is being used, but if it is very small it would seem that there is not very much to the power.
Can the Under-Secretary tell us what the tribunals have discovered? What rents are being charged, and to what have the tribunals reduced the rents? Can he tell us what happens? Have tribunals the means to follow up cases that come before them? We understand that for three months the tenants are protected. Have tribunals any means of discovering what happens after the three months? If it is found that after three months the tenants bringing the cases apparently disappear, it would suggest that the object of the Act is being defeated. If there is a general knowledge that a tenant who brings a case may later feel obliged to leave the premises, this might explain the considerable decline in the number of cases brought before the tribunals.
I should have thought that the Minister ought to have made it his business to ensure that he was informed about these things so that, knowing that this Amendment would be moved, he would have been in a position to give us the required information. I hope that he will tell us more about these things.

Mr. William Small: I noticed the complacency in the Under-Secretary's reply. He felt that there was no real need for protection of tenants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) spoke about the difficulties in Glasgow. A great deal of exploitation takes place not in the cities but in coastal resorts. There one can often find furnished accommodation, at a price, between October and May,


but between May and September one has to pay the tourist price or one is out. Because of the long-term risks when one has to live in a coastal area, one pays through the nose. Much of this may be due to the fact that knowledge about this protection is lacking.
If the Under-Secretary would look at his 29 areas and discover from which of them the appeals come, he would find that very few come from the areas I have mentioned, because security is more important than taking matters to law. If one tries to obtain protection before the law, one finds that one is turfed out during the summer period. I emphasise that these are the areas in which exploitation really takes place.

Mr. William Ross: We should be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the explanation he gave of the Act. I am sure that it came as a surprise to many of us that is covers such a wide category of accommodation. It lends purpose to the suggestion that perhaps people do not know enough about this, particularly those who might be affected and might benefit from it.
This is a technical Amendment. Without it, we could not discuss this matter, and we are happy that the Government have decided to continue the Act for another year. In saying that, we are entitled to point out that, since 1943, at various time the original Act has been amended and strengthened. It may well be that, in some of our criticisms, we are suggesting that the Government could still further strengthen it. The Government will have a considerable opportunity for doing so, since the new Housing Bill for Scotland will provide them with an indirect vehicle.
We must appreciate that simply because there have been only 89 cases, the Measure is not a dead letter. The Government themselves are convinced of that, otherwise they would not continue it. What usually happens? Somebody goes to the tribunal and the Press is present. This is the kind of story that is headlined in the local newspapers and receives wide publicity. I remember such a case in a seaside resort such as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) mentioned. Such publicity has a salutary effect upon would-be exploiters of the homeless.
From that point of view. I sincerely hope that the Government will not feel that they should let this Measure go next year. Protection is afforded by publicity of the few cases that arise. The Act stems from 1943, which is eighteen years ago. Thus we have a new generation of tenants who did not live through the difficult periods in the war, when people were probably more tribunal-conscious, and did not face these problems in 1949, when the Labour Government had to discipline the landlords through the three months' guarantee of security of tenure.
It may well be that a large number of people who could benefit from the Act know nothing about it. I was glad to learn from the Under Secretary of State that only recently he has taken up with local authorities the question of a publicity campaign. I hope that he will also remind them that they, too, have powers under the Act. In many cases it is far better for a tenant to act through his local authority than to do battle with the landlord on his own. I hope that we can have, if not this year, then fairly soon, a better analysis of the working of the Act.
Which are the areas where it is being used most? I suspect, like my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun, that if we go to Saltcoats and Troon, and to where I live, in Ayr, we might find that the wish of tenants to get out during the summer months leads to the tribunals being much more used. Every year the pressure on accommodation in Scotland increases. The Under-Secretary gave us figures showing that local authority house building is to drop between this and next year.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member must not try to get away with that again. I thought that I indicated to him earlier today that to be fair he must look at all public provision of houses. He is returning to the argument about local authority housing again and is leaving out the S.S.H.A. and the new towns.

Mr. Ross: The new towns have a special connotation in relation to areas like Glasgow, but the generality of houses to let depends on local authority building and the hon. Gentleman cannot deny that that number is to fall from 18,000 to 16,400 next year. The pressure will be increased and the more that


people go into furnished accommodation, whether furnished accommodation with services or partly shared services, there will be greater danger of exploitation.
The Government are wise to continue this Measure. What the hon. Gentleman has said shows that he knows his own housing policy and knows the dangers within it of the continued shortage of houses in Scotland. If he will bend himself to a far better and more realistic housing programme, in the foreseeable future we may be able not only to move the Amendment but actually to mean it.

Mr. Galbraith: I must apologise to the Committee for rising to speak too early. I thought that the first two contributions from hon. Members opposite were all that was intended. I apologise for inflicting myself on hon. Members again.
I will try in a somewhat rapid fashion to answer some of the questions put to me. I must, however, continue to cross swords with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I am certain that he does not want to give a false impression of the amount of housing being provided by public means of one kind or another in Scotland. Over the four years, 1959 to 1963, the total figure will be more or less the same, with only a slight drop of 400.

Mr. Ross: When we should be increasing it.

Mr. Galbraith: That total completely leaves out of account something which hon. Members opposite do not like to discuss—the houses provided by private enterprise. Each house provided by private enterprise releases another house. However, I should be out of order if I pursued this line and I will now try to answer some questions.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked me in which areas the tribunals were used most. As is to be expected, those are the areas of largest concentrations of population, Glasgow and Edinburgh. On the other hand, Ayr is by no means at the bottom of the list.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) asked whether I had any idea of what the rents were reduced to. In 3,529 decisions so far issued, the tribunals approved the contract rent in 816 cases and reduced the rent in 2,713

cases. That indicates that the tribunals were doing their job. I would like to consider the detailed questions which the hon. Member for Motherwell put, and perhaps write to him about them later.
I was asked what happened after the expiry of three months. The answer is that if the tenant is wise he goes back to the tribunal and asks for an extension of three months, in that way getting a certain amount of protection. I was asked by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock how many cases were brought by the local authority in the last three years. I cannot give him the figures for the last three years, but I can tell him that since the Act started 290 cases have been brought by the local authorities.

Mr. Ross: How many were instituted by the landlords?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Galbraith: I have a mass of figures here and I dare say that if I had time I should be able to obtain that figure, but I cannot do it immediately. I am sorry about that.
As regards publicity, I should prefer, without being in any way complacent, to give the new publicity which has been instituted an opportunity to do its work rather than to follow the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay). He seems to have less faith than I have in the natural tendency of human beings to complain. I am convinced that if there were the difficulties which have been suggested we should hear about them; and we have not heard about them. It will be interesting to see whether the new publicity brings about an increase.
With that undertaking and that further reply to questions, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. McInnes: Could not local authorities be invited to do some advertising?

Mr. Galbraith: It will be brought to the notice of local authorities and citizen's advice bureaux, and they will be provided, for example, with posters.

Mr. McInnes: Could we not follow up this point and invite local authorities to do some advertising?

Mr. Galbraith: I was trying to reply to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) if I did not make it clear that I think that one step at a time is a good way to proceed in this matter. Let us see what happens.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the information about the administration of the 1943 Act and also for his undertaking to look at two suggestions which I made, the first that he might consider providing, by Statute, for greater security to be given.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not want there to be a misunderstanding here. I did not say that I would revise the Statute. I undertook to look into the extent of the problem, which the hon. Member seemed to think was larger than I think it is. I gave no undertaking about legislation.

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry. I have been thanking the hon. Member more than is his due. I thought that he said that he would consider whether the security afforded was sufficient. I said that it was not. There is no doubt that the three months granted by the 1949 Act is inadequate security.
If the Under-Secretary of State recognises the kind of citizen who is normally exploited by these landlords, or who is likely to have to refer these questions to the tribunal, he is bound to realise that even being given three months' security is enough in itself to upset the tenant very much. Let him think of the young woman with one child or two children, who has been married for three or four years, who is living in one of our towns or cities in Scotland, who has no prospect of any accommodation being made available by the council and very little prospect of finding any privately-owned accommodation to rent other than that which she occupies. Hon. Members can imagine the effect on this young woman when she is told that she has security in the tenancy for the next three months after she has obtained a reduction in rent of, say, 10s. a week.

Mr. Lawson: It might almost be put the other way round, namely, "You have notice to quit in three months' time".

Mr. Fraser: I was coming on to that point. To tell her that she has security for the next three months is another way of telling her that she gets out at the end of three months, unless she can bring her case back to the tribunal and get an extension for yet another three months. This is no way in which to encourage people to carry on their lives. I do not want to overstate the case, but many of these people are being looked after by local authorities in local authority homes at present. They are people who just cannot find any accommodation.
The Under-Secretary says that if there were any scandal we should have heard about it by way of correspondence. He knows that in some towns and cities there have been so many housing scandals over the years that they have become commonplace and are no longer news. People do not talk about them. A few years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) used to make speeches in the House of Commons to the effect that there were 2,000 empty houses in Glasgow with "for sale" notices on them. In 1957 the Secretary of State proudly proclaimed that the Rent Act would remedy all this.

Mr. McInnes: Now there are 4,000 such houses.

Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State said that there would not be 3,000 empty houses had it not been for rent controls. He said that the Rent Act would remedy this state of affairs. The figure is now 3,800. It is a scandal. The other day I went round the streets of Bridgeton and saw some of these hideous tenements which ought to have been pulled down long ago. They have stood for the last 100 years. They are totally lacking in modern amenities and will never be improved. What we are pleased to call dwellings are standing empty with "for sale" notices in the windows. This is one scandal. Another scandal is that in the same area there should be so many people living bundled together in single rooms. There are families with six and seven children living in single rooms in the same area.

Mr. Galbraith: Without saying whether I agree or disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I would suggest that this is surely a different point from what we


are dealing with. The hon. Gentleman is saying that it is a scandal that houses should have "for sale" notices on them, but what we are dealing with is the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act.

The Temporary Chairman: The Under-Secretary has put point to a doubt in my mind. If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) had been making the point he is said to have been making, he would have been out of order. I thought that he was in a rather lengthy way illustrating a point which was, in fact, relevant, and I was hoping that the illustration would be cut reasonably short.

Mr. Fraser: I am grateful to you, Mr. MacPherson. Many of these houses are made available with services provided and they are covered by the Act of 1943. The Under-Secretary was at pains to explain to us that the Act did not cover only furnished accommodation but also accommodation made available with services provided and other categories. An example would be accommodation where the occupant of the dwelling is able to share a kitchen or other facilities which are made available by the landlord to other tenants. A common example is a sub-tenancy where the main tenant of the house makes one room available to another family which shares the kitchen. This one room, even though it is unfurnished, is covered by the provisions of the 1943 Act, although we have described it as the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943. Many of these houses are included in those which are now standing empty in an area in which there is the greatest need for houses. Of all the areas in the United Kingdom, this need especially exists in the City of Glasgow.
This is an example of what I would describe as a scandal, yet we have been given to understand that the Under-Secretary is not having any correspondence about it. The reason is that people have got accustomed to this type of scandal in Glasgow.

Mr. Galbraith: From time to time one has people coming along and asking for help to get a house. That indicates that there is a shortage of houses. No one would disagree about that. I am saying

that one does not have the same complaints about furnished houses. That is all I meant. In that sphere there does not seem to be the same difficulty as exists, we admit, with regard to other houses.

Mr. Fraser: I asked the Under-Secretary to consider whether the protection of the Act might be extended to other houses. He said that he would have to look at it, although he did not hold out much hope that it would be possible for him to do anything in that regard. But in his latest intervention he has shown that he knows that there is a need to do something about it. He has just admitted that there is a shortage of unfurnished houses. That is what he said; that his constituents, like ours, come to see him complaining about the shortage of houses.

Mr. Galbraith: We all know that.

Mr. Fraser: The Under-Secretary should not be so sure, because his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government denied that only last week in the debate an the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Galbraith: I promise that this is the last occasion on which I shall interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I do not know all about what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing said, but all the hon. Gentleman has to do is to read the White Paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued and in which it is recognised that there is a great housing problem in Scotland. That is all I was saying.

Mr. Fraser: I have read the White Paper, but I was going to restrain myself from making any comment on it until we come to discuss the Housing (Scotland) Bill, on which occasion I shall have further advice to offer to the Under-Secretary.
The case for the Rent Act in 1957 was that there was an adequate supply of houses to meet the needs of the people. There was parity between supply and demand, it was stated at that time. The Under-Secretary knows that no such parity exists in Scotland now and that that is particularly true of the larger towns and cities in Scotland. In these circumstances all I was suggesting—I thought in a modest way—was that the


protection which we in Parliament see fit to offer to certain categories of people by extending the 1943 Act should be extended a little further to offer protection to other people in other types of houses—poor houses, very old houses and decrepit houses. In the circumstances of there not yet being parity between supply and demand, what was the justification for the removal of control by the 1957 Act?
There are, of course, limits to which hon. Members can go in discussing these matters on the Amendment before the Committee. I think I have said as much as need be said at this stage, but I beg the Minister to consider whether he can use the Measure now before Parliament to improve and strengthen the Act still further. It has been continued for many years. It was first passed in 1943, and this evening the Under-Secretary has given us a catalogue of Amendments that have been made since 1943 to strengthen and improve it. He has a further instrument now before Parliament which he could use to improve it further. I hope that he will take advantage of the opportunity there given. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 30 to 38.
This Amendment relates to the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, a Measure comparable to the Scottish one that the Committee has just been discussing. We move it, in the first place, because we believe that before Parliament gives its approval to the continuance for a further period of this Act, there are certain matters about its working on which the Government should inform us. We move it, secondly, because we think that there is at least a case for arguing that there have been such changes in the whole nature of housing and rent problems since 1946 that it is proper to take this opportunity to ask ourselves whether, instead of continuing this Measure year after year by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it should not be replaced by permanent legislation that could be of a rather wider character than is this supposedly temporary Act.
The 1946 Act has been amended—in some respects extended and in others reduced in scope—by some half-dozen subsequent enactments. We are now reaching that time which occurs in all subjects when it is necessary to see where we have got through an original Act and a string of amending Acts and ask ourselves whether it is time to look at the problem afresh and, as I say, to replace this temporary Measure, that has to be extended by such Bills as this, by permanent and more satisfactory legislation.
That is what is in our minds in moving this Amendment. We do not move it in the sense that we should simply like to see this Act come to an end here and now and nothing be put in its place; that certainly would not be the view of any of us on this side nor, I would hope, of any hon. Member in any quarter of the Committee.
Let us take, first, the working of the tribunals, on which we think we should have further information from the Government before we prolong the life of this Measure. The Franks Committee considered the English and Welsh rent tribunals just as it considered the Scottish tribunals, though its comments about the English and Welsh tribunals were rather less cordial. The Committee said that it had received a number of complaints, and it made a number of suggestions. I am not at all sure that I would agree with all the criticisms made by the Committee, nor with all its suggestions, but we are entitled to ask the Government's view of some of the things to which the Franks Committee drew attention.
For example, the Committee held that it should be an inviolable rule that the chairman of a rent tribunal should be a lawyer. It also said that it was assured that it was Government policy that that should be so. To what extent, in fact, is that policy in operation? I do not necessarily commit myself to the view that a rent tribunal would be bound to be better if it had a lawyer as chairman, because the determination of a reasonable rent is certainly a matter in which common sense, wide experience and knowledge of the locality are at least as important as knowledge of the principles of law. But it would be interesting to


hear the Government's view on this matter.
Allied to that is the next matter which the Franks Committee raised of the difficulty that may arise in getting a sufficient number of properly qualified people, whether lawyers or not, to sit on these tribunals and do the necessary work. The Franks Committee expressed the view that there ought to be rather more remuneration to people who did so. What is the Government's view about that? Do the Government share or reject that particular criticism by the Franks Committee? If they reject it, will they give us their reasons for doing so? If they share the Franks Committee's view, what steps are they taking to move in the direction that the Franks Committee indicated?
The Franks Committee also urged that the panels from which these tribunals are constituted should contain a number of valuers so that there should be no difficulty, whenever it might be considered desirable, in getting the services of a valuer for a tribunal. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what is the Government's view on that and what progress they have made or intend to make to meet that point to which the Franks Committee drew attention?
The Franks Committee also suggested that some machinery of appeal from rent tribunals ought to be established. There is, of course, at the moment appeal over the question of the jurisdiction of the tribunals and certain other purely legal points. There is not straightforward appeal on the amount of rent that it fixes. I do not at all share the view of the Franks Committee here, because I am inclined to think that if such machinery existed it would tend to work more to the advantage of that party to the dispute who could more confidently engage in litigation than to the advantage of the party who for any reason—and we know what the reason usually is—was hesitant about doing so. It is not for me to say whether it would be the landlord or the tenant who would be more likely, if appeal facilities existed, to make use of them but I think hon. Members can form their own judgment on that. Again, perhaps the Government will give us their view on that matter.
To leave the no doubt valuable but slightly jejune recommendations of the Franks Committee, and to come to another matter concerned with the work of these tribunals, it has for some time been the policy of the Government to reduce the number of the tribunals and consequently, of course, to increase the area which each tribunal on the average must serve. From time to time there have been criticisms in the House by hon. Members whose areas were affected and who doubted whether, with this extension of the area which each tribunal served, it could in fact really meet the needs of the locality.
The last Report from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government tells us that this policy of reducing the number of tribunals had been pursued with such success in 1960 as to cause a reduction in the number of tribunals by one. The result of that is that a very considerable area of Surrey now has to be served by one tribunal whereas it was previously served by two. I wonder if it would be wise for the Government to continue with the idea that the number of these tribunals can be progressively reduced.
Something significant is happening to the number of cases brought before the tribunals. When the 1957 Rent Act was passed it excluded from the jurisdiction of the rent tribunals houses above a certain rateable value that had previously been within their jurisdiction. It was inevitable, therefore, that as a result of that Act there should be a sharp reduction in the number of cases that come before the tribunals.
More recently, the trend appears to be upwards again. I refer again to the last Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. We are in something of a difficulty here. The last Annual Report we had from the Ministry deals with events up to December, 1960—that is now nearly twelve months ago. If we compare the year 1960 with the year 1959 we find from that Report that 700 more cases, an increase of about 15 per cent., were brought in 1960. Further, whereas at the beginning of the year 1960 the tribunals had before them some 400 cases that had been brought to them and not decided—that was the position at the beginning of the year—at the end of the year there were nearly 600 such


cases before them still awaiting decisions. So far as that year goes, it would appear that a backlog of work was piling up. The Parliamentary Secretary may be able to tell us that the figures for such part of 1961 as has already expired are more encouraging and that the backlog is being worked off. If not—if the trend which was apparent in 1960 is continuing—we shall have to look again at the idea that progressively the number of rent tribunals can be reduced and that this will be a diminishing part of our whole legal and administrative structure.
Indeed, I do not think that it will be a diminishing part, for this reason. The effects of the Rent Act crop up on every side. Many of them were foreseen. Nearly all the evil effects, which it was denied by the Government would happen, have in fact happened, and several other things that were not foreseen have happened. One of its impacts on rent control is that the tribunal is required to determine the rent which it thinks in all the circumstances is reasonable, but one effect of the Rent Act is to alter those circumstances. As the months go by, people move out of unfurnished accommodation. If a tenant dies, or for any other reason there is a change of tenancy, the new tenancy is uncontrolled and the rent leaps up. When furnished premises are brought before it the rent tribunal naturally has to look at the rents of comparable dwellings, furnished or unfurnished, in the same street. The effect of decontrol, therefore, must be to cause rent tribunals to take a different view of what is a reasonable rent when they make comparisons with houses in the same street let unfurnished. The fact that they may change their view and consider that a higher rent than formerly is reasonable does not make it any easier for the tenant to pay that higher rent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who moved the Amendment relating to the Scottish Act, quoted some infamous cases of scandalously high rents for furnished accommodation, and I believe that every one of us from English or Welsh constituencies, certainly every one of us from urban constituencies and from the Metropolis, could quote our own experience of cases where families are having

to pay up to half of their income in order to have one or two rooms to live in. That can, apparently, go on side by side with this Measure continuing on the Statute Book. This is why, as I said before, we have a further reason for raising the matter.
9.30 p.m.
As it now stands, whatever the Minister may be able to tell us about its working in the last twelve months, the Act is becoming progressively less adequate to the situation created by the Rent Act. We have, therefore, to ask the rather wider question, whether instead of continuing this Act by temporary legislation the Government ought to announce their intention to replace it by permanent legislation of wider scope.
One of my reasons for urging that course on the Government I mentioned in our recent debate on the Gracious Speech devoted to housing. I pointed out then that out of the tragic procession of homeless families going into hostels and institutions in London five out of eight were people who had been turned out of furnished accommodation. Why is this? The reason is rather curious and interesting. Years ago, we always supposed that the tenant of furnished accommodation was in a less desirable position, less secure and less protected as a tenant than he who dwelt in unfurnished accommodation. One of the effects of the Rent Act, however, is that this is becoming progressively less true.
The tenant of unfurnished accommodation has a landlord who is not subject to any control. The tenant of furnished accommodation has at least the very limited and rather timid protection accorded him by the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. The result is that increasingly landlords letting rooms furnished are deciding that it is a better bet for them to let the rooms unfurnished instead. Out goes the tenant of the furnished accommodation. The landlord is left with a little gold-mine of uncontrolled accommodation either to let himself at the shocking rents at which unfurnished rented accommodation is now being let or to sell to someone else who will carry through the process. While he is doing that, the family who lived there are looking


desperately round and, in the end, they have to accept hostel or institution accommodation.
The Minister might take the opportunity of this debate to remedy the many lamentable omissions from the Minister's speech in the recent housing debate and tell us, for goodness sake, what the Government propose to do about this situation for which they themselves in the Rent Act are largely responsible.
I pray in aid here—I think that is the phrase—the leading article in The Times newspaper. A profound knowledge of the circumstances of our less fortunate citizens is not, I think one may fairly say, one of the most striking characteristics of leading articles in The Times. However, even The Times was obliged to say in this matter that certain aspects of our rent policy do not make sense. That is profoundly true. The situation wherein it pays the owner of furnished rooms to drive his tenant out is one of the things which do not make sense.
We therefore believe that, now that we have come to the point in the year when we have to consider this matter again, the opportunity should be taken to say, "We will let it continue this once, but obviously we cannot just let it slide or the situation will become even worse. But this will be the last time, and, before the House of Commons is again asked to prolong this temporary Measure, the Government will prepare something permanent and of wider scope." Part of that wider scope today would need to be the extension of the power to determine the rents of furnished and unfurnished accommodation by tribunals. I do not believe that we shall deal with the desperate situation which is boiling up in London and some of our cities unless some provision of that kind is made. A proposal to that effect was made a short while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), who brought forward a Bill in which there was provision for the determination of the rent of unfurnished lettings by tribunals as an immediate measure to deal with the hardships which are being created.
I should like to mention one other peculiar feature. If a person answers an advertisement concerning unfurnished accommodation, it is possible that he will

find that the unfurnished accommodation is owned by a company which also deals in furniture, and that one of the conditions of his getting the tenancy is that he should obtain the furniture for the premises from that company. It would be interesting to know whether when he had done that—we can imagine on what terms he would do it—the law would regard those premises as furnished or unfurnished. I mention that to show the Minister the sort of thing which happens as a result of the Rent Act and the situation which the Ministry has created.
Another field in which the scope of this legislation ought to be widened concerns the degree of security of tenure which is given to anyone who appeals to the rent tribunal. At present it is three months at most with the possibility of further extension by not more than another three months. We know how this is supposed to work. Once the tribunal has determined the rent, the landlord should not continue to charge more than that rent even if there is a change of tenant. The hope is that, since he has nothing to gain financially from evicting the tenant who took him to the tribunal, he will not evict him. We also know, however, that, although there is nothing to be gained from it financially, there is such a thing as evicting a tenant in spite or revenge because he has taken the landlord to the tribunal. It was that in part which, it was hoped, security of tenure would cure.
Surely the length of security of tenure should have some relation to the time that it might take a reasonably diligent person to find other accommodation suited to his needs. Does anyone deny that it is harder now than some years ago for someone who is given notice to quit to find accommodation suitable to his needs? If he has an average size income and an average size family, how long will it take him to find suitable rented accommodation for his needs in London after he has been turned out of his home?
I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary would take up the challenge that I offered the Minister in the housing debate and which the Minister ignored. Where is all the furnished accommodation to let which was to have been brought on the market by the Rent Act? I do not deny that the stuff which is advertised


in the evening newspapers is very useful for the needs of a limited number of people, but it is no answer to the problems of the majority of our fellow citizens who are seeking homes. Will the Parliamentary Secretary or anyone else tell us where there is an abundant or even a tolerable supply of rented accommodation at a rent that a person with an income of, say, about £12 a week can reasonably be expected to pay? Somebody turned out of furnished accommodation because his three months' or six months' security of tenure has expired must try to find accommodation of that kind. All we are asking for in the present instance is that he should be given a little longer in which he might find it.
Then there is the question of actually getting the cases before the tribunal in the first place. There are, alas, a great many ways in which a man or a family living in one part of a house can make life almost unbearable for the people who live in the other part of the house. There are a great many tenants who would like to brine their cases before the tribunal but who are deterred not only by the fear that they might be turned out but that even if they remained in life would be hardly worth living there afterwards.
It was to remedy that situation that in the Act local authorities were empowered to bring cases before the courts. Can the Government tell us to what extent that power is being used? I think I am right in saying that no recent official figures have been given. Will the Government consider circularising local authorities, particularly in those areas chiefly affected, reminding them of their powers in this connection?
A case was drawn to my attention recently in which a sanitary inspector, visiting a house in the course of his ordinary duties and requiring in the course of those duties to see the rent book, noticed that a rent was being charged above what was legally permissible under the Act. He, in my judgment, very properly drew the attention of the council to the matter and it was put right. The astounding thing is that some members of the council designated his action as snooping and suggested that he ought not to have done it.
I rejoice at any opportunity where people who break this law by overcharging rents are brought to book. Because the tenant is usually in the weaker position and may for many good reasons hesitate to bring the case himself, we ought to see that full use is made of the power of local authorities to bring cases under this Act. In my judgment, however, in the end we shall have to go further than that. We shall have greatly to widen the powers of local councils to acquire property. That is what the Government ought to be considering with regard to the problem of the London homeless.
I have given the Minister a fair number of points to answer, but I think it possible that before he rises to do so, a number of my hon. Friends may have further points to raise. We are glad that this annual opportunity has given us a chance, particularly now, when the housing shortage and the problem of the homeless is so much in the public eye, to draw attention to at least one direction in which the Government could do something to improve the situation.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was right when he raised the whole question of this renewal procedure under which year after year we are asked to continue a number of Acts. This Act with which we are now dealing and which the Government seek to renew has been on the Statute Book for some fourteen or fifteen years—quite a long time. I shall, if I may, refer to that aspect of the matter again in a few moments. Certainly the Government should consider now whether or not the time has arrived when the content of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, with the added legislation, should be made permanent.
Before I deal with that I should like to look at the whole scope of the work which the tribunals have been doing in recent years. We know that it has been the Government's policy to reduce the number of tribunals. Of course, we watch this process of reduction very carefully, because in the view of many of us, certainly of those of us who sit for urban areas, it is essential for these


tribunals to continue in some form, preferably under permanent legislation. Certainly some form of machinery should be there.
From the 1960 Annual Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government we find that whereas in 1957 there were 60 tribunals in England and Wales, in July, 1960, the number had been reduced to 43. We should be told clearly by the Government spokesman whether or not he is satisfied that this number of tribunals adequately covers the ground and the volume of cases coming forward, for, contrary to what we were led to believe, the number of cases going to the tribunals is increasing. We were told in 1957 that as the result of the operation of the Rent Act passed that year there would be a great change round in accommodation and that there would be available accommodation for people to rent.
All of us on both sides of the Committee know that the prediction of the then Minister of Housing and Local Government has been proved to be quite unfounded, and it is admitted by all London Members that there is not only insufficient housing for people who want to rent it but that there is also a severe shortage and that the position is becoming worse. Contrary to what we were told at that time, that there would be more accommodation available, we find that people have been forced into this so-called furnished accommodation, into one room, and crowded up into slums and semi-slums, many of which properties are let off as furnished accommodation.
My figures, extracted from the 1960 Annual Report of the Ministry, indicate that, whereas in 1957 there were 4,912 cases, and although in 1956 there was a slight decrease and in 1959 a slight decrease again, the number of cases during that year jumped to 5,384. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may have more recent figures. He should have. His Ministry's Report is now due, if not overdue, but, as far as I know, it is not available to hon. Members. Presumably it will be published in a few months' time. The current Report takes us only to July, 1960, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will give us the upward or downward movement in the

number of cases coming to the tribunals in recent months.
There is in my part of London a very effective tribunal. It is probably one of the largest in the country. It covers a very large number of people and houses and embraces nine boroughs. It does a very large volume of work. I am told that members of the tribunal are at present busier than ever, in spite of the fact that some of the references to it have lapsed. This so-called Islington tribunal, which in fact covers a number of other boroughs, meets four or five times a week. I know the value of the work these men and women do and I should like to thank them now for that work.
We ought to make it clear to the hundreds of thousands of people who might need the protection of these tribunals whether or not their cases would be covered by their jurisdiction. I would remind the Committee that the tribunals cover all furnished lettings even though the furniture might be sparse and consist of a bed or a table on three legs. Anybody who is in furnished or partly furnished accommodation can claim the protection of a tribunal.
I would say to my constituents and to the constituents of any other hon. Member that if they find themselves in a furnished room or semi-furnished room and they have doubt about the rent that they are paying or the security of their tenure they should go to the tribunal. I say that because I want that information published in my local paper so that people shall know that they have that amount of protection. I do not apologise for using the House of Commons for that purpose.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish his constituents to be misled and that he will remind his constituents that there is a limit on the rateable value of the premises and that only where the rateable value is below that limit do they come within the jurisdiction of the tribunals.

Mr. Evans: That is correct, but I find it necessary to say these things in short, simple terms. I am sure that anybody so financially placed as to be in the better type of furnished accommodation


will not be confused. I am anxious to make this clear to the people who really need the protection of the tribunals.
As I understand the Act, even though a room has no furniture in it, if some service is provided by the landlord, the tenancy comes under the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Therefore, a person living in part of a house where no furniture but some service, such as electricity or gas, is provided, can seek the protection of the tribunal.
There has been a tendency—it is rapidly growing—since the passing of the Rent Act for landlords to cease to let accommodation as furnished, to take out the bed, so-called, and the table with three legs, and let it as unfurnished accommodation, because they know that whereas the tenants of furnished or semi-furnished rooms have same protection from the tribunal, tenants of unfurnished rooms are not protected. That is another aspect of the racket going on, in London in particular, because of the desperate shortage of accommodation.

Mr. George Thomas: And in Cardiff.

Mr. Evans: No doubt it is bad in Cardiff, too, but to me it is worst in my own locality.
I hope that anyone who is in doubt—am not addressing hon. Members now, because I do not suppose any of them live in furnished accommodation; I am speaking to the populace generally—will seek the protection of the tribunals. Because of the desperate situation in London in particular, I feel it necessary to remind them of the protection which they may obtain.
We know that the tenant of furnished accommodation or accommodation which is unfurnished but where some service is supplied can appeal to the tribunal about his rent and security of tenure. We also know that the landlord can make a reference to the tribunal if he thinks that it should investigate the rent charged. The local authority, too, is empowered under the Act to refer cases to the tribunal. I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give us the proportions of cases referred to tribunals by landlords, tenants and local authorities respectively. We do not get very

much information about the work of the tribunals. The section in the Ministry's Annual Report is very scanty. We ought to be given further information and should not have to wait for this occasion to prise it out of the Parliamentary Secretary. At the moment the cases are not analysed and we are not told enough about what is happening. I think the Ministry might try to help us about that.
We also know that, according to the Act, as soon as a tenant makes a reference to the tribunal his notice to quit is inoperative. We ought to make that realised fully in the country. My experience makes me believe that it is necessary to emphasise it. Week after week people come to me, with children hanging round their mothers' skirts, saying that they have received notice to quit. No one can help feeling emotional about such appeals, and I feel compelled to speak about it here because of the plight of many of my constituents.

It being Ten o'clock. The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. A. Evans: I was touching upon the point about a notice to quit being inoperative as soon as a reference has been made to a tribunal. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham also mentioned that a tribunal can give three months' security of tenure, and that this period may be extended on application by the tenant. If any poor person in furnished or semi-furnished accommodation, or accommodation where some service is provided, finds himself in difficulty, he should go to the local rent tribunal, knowing that any notice to quit will not operate while the tribunal has the matter in hand, and that in all likelihood he will


be given at least three months' security of tenure.
It is also necessary to make clear that the Act lays it down that once a tribunal has decided upon a case and has fixed the rent of the accommodation, it is unlawful for the landlord to extract more than that rent. I point out these simple things which the Act contains because I have come across case after case where landlords, possibly through ignorance and certainly through the desire to possess more money, have ignored rents fixed by the tribunals and have charged more. They have even made additions to the rents for extraneous purposes.
It should be made clear to all landlords that to charge more than the rent fixed by a tribunal, and to add any additional sum to the rent, is committing an offence, and that the offender can be fined up to £100 or given six months' imprisonment or both. I hope that the landlords in my area who rent out this wretched, so-called furnished accommodation bear in mind that, if they offend against the law, there are penalties.
Although the matter is not contained in this Act, it is important to remember—and chairmen of tribunals have remarked upon this from time to time—that it is now compulsory by law for every landlord to provide his tenant with a rent book. There are thousands of cases where rent is paid, but no rent book is provided. That is also an offence.
We should remind ourselves that a large percentage of the homeless families in our great capital city have come from furnished accommodation. A sample has been taken and it has been found that 68 per cent. of the homeless families do so. If hon. Members opposite were to spend a little time talking to some of those families and finding out what kind of people they are, they would sit on those benches with less complacency than they now show when these questions are discussed.
This is happening because landlords know that more money can be obtained by selling a house which is vacant, or partly vacant, than by letting it, and that more can be gained by letting furnished rather than unfurnished accommodation. So this business goes on and week after week the plight of the more

unfortunate of our citizens becomes even worse.
There are desperate cases. A good, honest man who served his country for twelve years in the Navy, and who has a wife and three children and no home to go to, came to see me and told me that he earned £12 10s. a week and was prepared to pay £4 a week for a room. He asked me where he could get one. I had no answer to give him. The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has sat here full of complacency year after year while most of the agony arising from the housing situation in London has arisen from his acts and his omissions. It is my duty to say that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham reminded us of the Report of the Franks Committee—the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries which was set up by the Lord Chancellor in 1955. The Report was presented to the House of Commons in July, 1957, four years ago. The Committee said that in its view the chairman of each tribunal should be someone with legal qualifications. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham did not agree, but, from my experience of these tribunals, I believe that it is right that a chairman should be someone with legal qualifications. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what action his Ministry has taken during the last four years to implement that recommendation?
The Report went on to discuss the fees paid to the chairmen and members of the tribunals and said:
We are not satisfied that the fees paid hitherto have been adequate to attract enough people of the right quality and we recommend that the fees be reviewed. …
Have the fees been reviewed? If so, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give us such information as he has on the subject.
A number of these unnoticed people who serve on these tribunals and who do valuable work have been at the job for 15 years. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us now, or let me know in due course, what arrangements have been made about their superannuation. After 15 years any civil servant is entitled to some consideration in respect of superannuation.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will inform the House as fully as he can on those points and that in due course he will let my hon. Friend and myself have other information which he has not with him tonight.

Mr. Fletcher: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans). I am grateful for the presence of the Leader of the House, because I feel that the fact that he has listened attentively to criticisms about the homeless in London will be of some advantage to the House.
It is significant that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West thought it necessary—and I am sure that he was right—to remind the Committee of the provisions of the Act which we are being asked to renew, because in some quarters, particularly among poor people living in unfurnished accommodation, people are not aware of such limited protection as the Act has given. My hon. Friend has rendered a service in putting on record the circumstances in which some people living in furnished accommodation can go to the tribunals and get some relief for a very limited period. What is much more important is that my hon. Friend has exposed fully and in detail the weaknesses and limitations of this Act. I think that it is scandalous that we are asked to renew the Act, unamended, for another twelve months. The fact that the Government have asked us to do so is an indication of gross complacency over an aspect of civilisation in London, the plight and the tragedy of thousands of homeless people, which is a very serious reflection on the Government's capacity and intentions.
May I summarise some of the points which my hon. Friend made? The Act was passed in 1946, fifteen years ago, and was intended to have a limited operation for a limited time. It has been renewed annually. But let us reflect upon the circumstances in which it was passed in 1946 and the circumstances in which the Government are asking us to renew it unamended. In 1946 there was a large measure of rent protection under the Rent Restriction Acts for tenants of

both furnished and unfurnished premises. In those days, fortunately, the majority of tenants had security of tenure.
The condition today is totally different. As a result of the operation of the Rent Act, 1957, circumstances have arisen in London and in other large cities in which for hundreds of thousands of people there is no longer security of tenure. The one thing which is required if we are to save these poor unfortunate people from being homeless and from having their families broken up is that there should be some security of tenure. It is not a question of how much rent they should pay but a question of having security of tenure.
There are 3,000 homeless people in London, and the figure is mounting week by week. I do not know how many there are in the other big cities, but I know a number of cases in Islington of people living in furnished accommodation who have been to the rent tribunal and have had their rent fixed, and their three months' security is ending. They have scanty accommodation and are paying a very high rent. They do not complain of the rent.
10.15 p.m.
A woman came to see me the other day. She had two or three children and was expecting another shortly after Christmas. Her time will be up and she will have nowhere to go. She and her husband told me that they had spent night after night for weeks tramping the streets trying to find accommodation. They have visited estate agents and their neighbours. They do not mind paying a reasonable rent. They are prepared to pay more than they can afford if they can get any shelter. What they want to avoid is being sent to either Newington Lodge or Hillside. If they go to either of these places the family will be broken up and they will have to live in an institution which was not built to cater for families like this.
There is an institution like this in my constituency. It was built many years ago as a workhouse. In recent years it has been used for elderly people. I make no complaint about that. Some of them have been moved out. They now have temporary improvised accommodation. If families are sent to such places, the father is not allowed there. He has


to shift for himself. In this accommodation, such as it is, they are herded together with a number of other mothers and children. They have this institutional life forced upon them because they cannot get anywhere to live.
The reason why they cannot get anywhere to live is partly the failure of the Government's housing policy and partly that they have no security of tenure where they are at present. They are forced out because the landlord, be he rapacious or not rapacious, wants the accommodation. Perhaps he wants it in his possession so that he can let it again unfurnished at a higher rent.
This is the result of the Government's policy. The consequence is real dire distress for the honest people living in these institutions. The number is increasing by about forty-five a week. This was a golden opportunity for the Government to do something in a temporary manner. One thing which would assist, as a temporary immediate measure, the homeless people in London and elsewhere would be to give them security of tenure for a time. If the Government adopted even one of the half-a-dozen remedies suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham—if, for example, rent tribunals had power to extend the time not for three months but for six months or twelve months—it might give the Government time to introduce far-reaching housing programmes and make reforms. Equally, to adopt another of my hon. Friend's suggestions, if rent tribunals were given the power to fix the rents of unfurnished houses as well as furnished houses, as I proposed in the Bill I introduced last Session, it would provide protection in a large number of cases.
I am more distressed than I can say. I find it difficult to find words sufficiently strong to express my horror, indignation and disgust at the heartless attitude of this Tory Government, who sit there in such apparent complacency condemning so many hundreds of families to live in homeless conditions and have their family life broken up in this way.
Mothers in great distress come to me. They have been used to having their own homes, small and humble though they may be, and bringing up their children in them—looking after them, cleaning them,

clothing them, and giving them parental attention. They now have to live in institutions. The father cannot go there except late in the evening or at weekends. They are herded together in institutional life. This is a shocking comment on the state of British civilisation in our affluent society. It calls for urgent and desperate remedies. This was an opportunity to do something about it. Some remedial measures could have been introduced into the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, to prevent the position getting worse.
I do not know whether the Government are aware that unless something is done the situation will get worse week by week. Family after family will have to be told that there is no hope but for them to go into an institution. The point is that the institutions do not exist. It is all very well for the Minister of Housing to say that the L.C.C. has powers and resources, and so on, but resources to do what? Is it to turn out-of-date workhouses and institutions into temporary refuges for the homeless? That is not the solution.
No doubt the L.C.C. does its best, but this is a matter for which the Government must accept the prime responsibility. These people should be given security of tenure so that they will not be turned out of premises in which they are at present living. I do not want to detain the Committee, but I must emphasise what I have said by reminding hon. Members—and this experience is not common to me—that every Friday two or three constituents come to me to speak of their plight and ask what should they do. I feel so helpless, for there is nothing much they can do, and when their time expires they have nowhere to go. They fear that they will be on the streets.
I have been to these institutions and I can understand their reluctance and resentment towards them. In the meantime, they are suffering at the prospect before them. It is a frightful situation that so many families should be condemned to live in these places. What can I say to them when they come to see me? I do not want to paint the Government any blacker than is justified, but I am appalled at the wickedness of a Government which allows these conditions to continue.

Mr. G. Thomas: I rise because I do not want the Committee to think that this is only a London problem. I regret to say that it is a very grievous problem in the City of Cardiff and, I believe, in every great industrial centre. People are accepting conditions in furnished apartments that no family should be called on to accept. They do so simply because they know that if they protest they will be homeless.
Last Saturday, at my "surgery" in Cardiff, a family came to me; mother, father and six children living in unfurnished rooms. They have lived for twenty-one years in the same place without owing one penny rent and they are to be homeless because of the Rent Act. The only prospect they have is to split up the family and go into one of the institutions that we are providing in Cardiff.
We talk a lot about family life in this House; about it being a cornerstone of our way of existence. Is it not terrible humbug to go on speaking in this way and should this whole problem not have a No. 1 priority so that our people are provided with homes? There is no problem more grievous to any hon. Member who holds a "surgery" than to deal with people who are living in such conditions.
Recently, a family came to me in Cardiff and told me about a three-storey house in which a family lives in each room. The landlord lays down his own conditions in these furnished apartments. He says that there will be no television, no smoking and that visitors will be allowed only when he gives per mission. This is true. Who would think that it is 1961 in Cardiff? It is only made possible by the Act about which we are speaking. By not altering this Measure the Government are giving an all-clear to the most unscrupulous people to exploit good, honest—

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He talks of altering this

Measure. That is not, in fact, what the Committee is discussing. We are debating continuing the Measure, or not continuing it.

Mr. Thomas: It is my fault, Sir William. I quite realise that I should not have used the word "alter". We want this Measure to be deleted from the list of those to be renewed. Mine was only a slip of the tongue, as I would have thought you would have realised.
To get back to my point, it is thoroughly intolerable that good, honest, hard-working people should not be given the protection of the law in their family life. That is why I am glad that my hon. Friends should seek to delete this Measure from the renewal list tonight. The position is made the more offensive by the fact that local authorities are not able to offer the usual ordinary rehousing. The lists are getting longer and longer, and unless some forceful step is taken, such as a new Measure to deal with the rehousing of these people in furnished apartments, the problem will get even more aggravated.
The Leader of the House made a notable speech recently on the brotherhood of man. The brotherhood of man has obligations and responsibilities for us all. The television programme the other night about London families turned my stomach. When, within the last few nights, I saw those mothers with babies in their arms protesting violently that they would not go into these institutions, I thought, "How far can this House of Commons have its priorities so upside down that it cannot give the attention it should to this major social scandal?"
I do not want the House of Commons or the country to believe that because London has had its grievous, homeless families spotlighted this is a Metropolitan problem only. It is not; it is one that concerns all our people, and that is why I think that action is urgently called for.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I am glad that we have this chance to revert to some of the problems we discussed last Monday. I make no apology for intervening again on this subject; I would regard myself as a poor Londoner if I did not do so. This Amendment seeks to delete this particular Act, so that it can be strengthened in certain respects.
Why is it that people go into furnished accommodation today, and what sort of accommodation, in London generally, do they get? I speak from a fair knowledge of the subject. The average furnished accommodation in London makes an absolute mockery of the word "furnished". As a rule, but not in every case, the furniture consists of two broken-down chairs a scant bit of carpet and some lino on the floor. That is "furniture". Every estate agent knows it, the Government know it, and everyone associated with housing knows it, and that occurs not only in London.
There is the furnishings-and-fittings racket. It is illegal, but when someone is in desperate need legality does not come into it. If someone wants a roof over his head he will do anything he can to get it, and will not tell anyone of what goes on. First, therefore, in order to get furnished accommodation one has to pay someone, usually the agent, the furnishings-and-fittings racket. In some cases it is called key money. That means that a family in desperate need, with nowhere to go, and at the bottom of the borough council housing list, has to seek furnished accommodation. That is the accommodation they get, and I am not over-stating the case when I say that they have to pay anything up to £50 in what is called key money. It is illegal, but they pay the money in order to get in.
10.30 p.m.
It is fair to say that, having got in, if they object to the amount of rent that they are having to pay they can take the matter to a tribunal. But if a person is living in that sort of accommodation, having paid that sort of money to get in and probably paying an exorbitant rent, he dare not go before a tribunal, as the Act now stands. Certainly one can take the matter to a

tribunal, but one can get only a certain period of security of tenure. If a person wants to be certain of being evicted from furnished accommodation he only has to go before a tribunal. There he is given three months' security of tenure. With a bit of luck he may get another three months, but after that he is out. Where can such a person go?
I put down a Question to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I got a Written Reply yesterday. I called attention to the homeless families in London and asked whether he agreed that the Rent Act had anything to do with the situation. This Act that we are debating relates very much to the situation created by yet another Act. That is why I want to delete this one. The effects of the 1957 Rent Act are such that persons living in these conditions have no hope of getting accommodation elsewhere.
Last week we heard one good thing, which is to the credit of the Minister. We know that it is not the coloured people who are causing this shortage of accommodation. So the Leader of the House can carry on with his "brotherhood of man" speech. The coloured people are living in accommodation so overcrowded as to create almost a public health menace. They are not concerned with this problem of finding homes. But, again and again, people have to take this sort of accommodation because there is nowhere else for them to go.
I say emphatically that not only in my constituency but throughout London, and certainly in areas like Chelsea and Fulham and that type of area, there is far more furnished accommodation than we have ever had before. A house which a tenant leaves, for whatever reason, becomes decontrolled and the landlord can then do what he likes. He is in business for private profit. He is not concerned with putting a roof over the heads of people because he likes them. He is in business because he likes money. That is the finest Tory philosophy that I know. He turns the house into furnished accommodation, with a few old sticks of furniture tucked into different rooms. I could point to houses in the better districts of London—this does not


happen in Bermondsey—where there are as many as ten rooms, each of which are let, with three or four people in each room. In fact, if there were eleven rooms there would be eleven families living there.
As I suggested in my Question, the Rent Act has a relationship to this situation. But the Minister says "Ah, he is trying to make political capital out of it." Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how much more furnished accommodation there is today than there was, say, four years ago? Is it too difficult for him? How much more of this sort of accommodation covered by this Act is now being made available to those in need as compared with three, four or five years ago? He can take it from me that this so-called furnished accommodation arrangement is a great racket. It is far greater than it was before, and it makes the housing position worse than it was.
I live for the day when this furnished accommodation racket will be abolished. It is an absolute scandal. It is very prevalent. Everybody has to live with it. How can anyone justify some of the things which we all know are going on? The Leader of the House must know about them. I am sure that they happen in Enfield and that there is furnished accommodation there which he would not put a pig in, yet thoroughly scandalous rents and rates are being asked for it. Nothing is done about it.
We are told that people can go to the tribunal and can appeal, as of right, against the rent. What happens if they do? If they do go to the tribunal, they very soon join the ranks of the homeless.
I do not know what my London County Council colleagues have said to the Minister or what they will say in the future, but I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I do not intend to stand for the nonsense which has been issuing from his Department about all this being the responsibility of the county council. Are the Government completely abrogating their responsibility in the matter? In my constituency, I have thousands of people who have, perfectly justifiably and properly, been on the waiting list of the London County Council for years. Am I now to understand that

it is Government policy that anyone who is made homeless should be given one of these so-called re-lets? If that is the idea and that is the decision adopted by the London County Council, aided and abetted by the Government, they will hear a lot more about it from me. What about the people who have been waiting their turn on the list?

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is going rather far from the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: No, Sir Gordon, with great respect, I am not. I can show that I am in order. If the Amendment were carried and the Act were taken away, and then there was brought back something in the form which I wish to see, we should not have the problems which now face us in regard to homeless families generally.

The Chairman: We are not discussing a new law but an Amendment proposed to the Bill before the Committee.

Mr. Mellish: I am speaking to the Amendment before the Committee, which would have the effect of discontinuing the Act under discussion. That is the purpose of our argument, Sir Gordon. I say that it should not be continued. We should take it out, allow it to expire now and, having allowed it to expire, we should then require a great Leader of the House, a man with bags of imagination and tremendous initiative, well able to lead us, to say to the Minister of Housing, "Bring back to the House an Act which is worth while". That would be the consequence of what I am asking now.
The situation is far too tragic to make party politics out of it. I do not have to make party politics out of it. I have nearly a 20,000 majority. I just cannot stand by and see these things happening. It has been argued that the power is vested in the county council. We have heard about the problems of Cardiff. We shall probably hear later from other hon. Members, too. Will the county council solve those problems as well? I do not know how the London County Council is to solve the problems of Cardiff, but even that idea I would not put beyond the present Government. It is as bad as that.
The Government think they have been really clever. Now, they say, they have twisted our argument completely. One can almost hear the Leader of the House and his right hon. and hon. Friends glorying in having turned the political argument right against the London County Council itself. They may have done for a moment, aided and abetted by the Press to some extent, but the problem will not end tonight. Some of us, whatever else we may do or say during the rest of our Parliamentary careers, will keep up the pressure in the House and in every possible way, and we shall prove to the people of London where the responsibility lies.
The people of London are not all that foolish. Those who have a roof over their heads in London tonight are very lucky. It is a good job that they do not live in furnished rooms or have to ask for a home anywhere in London today. They would have no chance at all. We shall keep this fight going until every Londoner knows where the responsibility lies—on the shoulders of the Government who introduced an Act which has made the Act now before us worse than it ever was. That is why I am determined that the present Act should not be continued.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I must comment on the inadequacy of the present Act for which continuance is sought. I hope that the Government will soon think of an entirely new Measure to replace it, provide adequate security for the people affected and also extend the limit of protection beyond furnished accommodation to unfurnished accommodation.
I well remember when the Act now before the Committee was passing through the House because I made my maiden speech on it. Even then, although the Bill was intended as a purely short-term Measure, I suggested that the weakness of it was that it did not provide adequate security for the tenant. I am quite sure that this problem applies not only in Birmingham but in the whole country. Of the number of tenants of furnished accommodation who are being exploited today, those who go to the tribunals must be an extremely small proportion of the whole.

I am quite sure that in Birmingham, of the many of the worst cases of exploitation and of high rents for furnished and unfurnished accommodation, the vast majority of the exploited tenants would not think of going to the the tribunals because they know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, that the inevitable result would be that in six months they would go out.

Mr. Mellish: Six months at the maximum.

Mr. Silverman: Yes, in six months at the maximum, supposing they got an extension. That is so throughout the whole country. The first thing wanted is adequate security in order that tenants may go to the tribunals without fear. That is the only way we can make this Act really effective.
I hope that any new legislation will incorporate that. Six months might have been adequate when we were dealing originally with the Measure, which was intended as a purely temporary Measure, as it was in the first instance. Now fifteen years have passed and it is quite obvious that this legislation is far from being temporary. It may be needed for another fifteen years and probably more than that. Therefore, the Government should think in terms of more security, adequate security, in order that tenants may go without fear to the tribunals to get their rents reduced. Clearly, this should not extend merely to unfurnished accommodation, even—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Sir Gordon, I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting that instead of this legislation, which should be deleted—that is the suggestion before the Committee—for the purpose of introducing another Measure, which provides for the extension of the present legislation—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is suggesting alternative legislation, and that is out of order.

Mr. Silverman: No. The Amendment before the Committee is for the deletion


of this Measure from the Bill. I am simply saying that I believe it should be deleted.

Mr. Denis Howell: We cannot leave a vacuum.

Mr. Silverman: Yes, if this Measure is deleted further alternative legislation will be introduced. In order to do this, this deletion is being proposed.

The Chairman: It is not in order to discuss further legislation.

Mr. James MacColl: On a point of order. The Scottish Undersecretary of State said that he would consider some point in connection with the Scottish Act. Surely, if it is in order to ask the Scottish Under-Secretary to consider a Scottish Measure in this way, it is not out of order or unreasonable to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the English Ministry upon a similar Measure for England to do precisely the same thing? We want to find out from him whether he will make the same review of this problem in England as was promised by the Scottish Minister for Scotland.

The Chairman: I cannot comment on something which happened when I was not in the Chair, but the rules of order are that we cannot suggest alternative legislation. We can discuss continuing or discontinuing the Act, but not amending it.

Mr. Silverman: I am not proposing to amend the Act. Of course I cannot. What I am saying is that this Measure, though it has certain satisfactory aspects, is not strong enough to do the job of giving the security which is necessary. This is not a London problem. It applies to Cardiff, it applies to Birmingham—

Mr. Mellish: Just worse in London, that is all.

Mr. Silverman: It is pretty bad in Birmingham. I am quoting now from the Birmingham Evening Despatch of this Monday, which quoted the housing manager of the Birmingham Corporation. Under the heading:
Higher rents—and city homeless—total soars 

the paper says:
New Rent Act cases are pushing up Birmingham's list of homeless families, Mr. J. P. Macey, the City Housing Manager said today. Some landlords have raised rents and families unable to pay have been put out on the streets, he said. Mainly due to the Rent Act, he said, the number of homeless families passing through Corporation hostels had already risen from 550 to 750 a year since 1957.
The people who go to the hostels are the worst and most desperate cases who cannot find even one room. They are reduced to the last resort, which is the hostel, where in many cases families are broken up and separated.
In 12 months there had been pleas for help from 1,200 families in the City.
These are really homeless families, not people who simply have no house, but people who have no roof over their heads.
'Now we are getting cases where the three-year rent agreement period fixed under the Act has expired' said Mr. Macey. 'Some families already paying higher rents fixed when the Act came into force are now being told to pay more or they must leave. People unable to pay have had to get out.' Mr. Macey said those families with nowhere to go tried desperately to get lodgings, but this was nearly impossible if they had children. 'They come to us as a last resort, and we are doing what we can to help them' he added.
I need hardly say that, apart from anything else, this is a burden on the housing register and an imposition on the people who have been waiting their turn for many years on the ordinary register for houses, because it deprives them of a proper place in the queue. This delay is caused by the Government's housing legislation. Clearly, new legislation should be introduced.

10.45 p.m.

The Chairman: We cannot discuss new legislation at present.

Mr. Silverman: I am not discussing new legislation, except to say why the present legislation should be deleted. In view of what has been said tonight, in view of the position in Birmingham, the lack of security, the increased rents for unfurnished as well as furnished accommodation, the impact of the Rent Act—

The Chairman: The Act applies only to furnished accommodation.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Is not the whole point that we are arguing


that it is necessary to delete the present Act because of the implications of the Rent Act? Therefore, is it not relevant to argue that part of the Rent Act has made this Act not the sort of Measure that is worth keeping on the Statute Book?

The Chairman: One can argue that the Act should be deleted, and only that. One cannot argue that there should be alternative legislation.

Mr. Silverman: I am saying why the present Act is inadequate and why it should be deleted in order that adequate legislation might be introduced to deal with these points. I think that the Committee will agree that, in view of the facts given in the debate, such legislation is necessary and is needed very soon to relieve the present extremely difficult situation. I hope that the Minister will consider withdrawing the Bill and introducing adequate legislation to cover these points.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I rise to reinforce the arguments of my hon. Friends. I am certain that the Government have not a clue about the intensity of the problem in some areas, and not only in London. My constituency is in Middlesex.
Pressure on furnished accommodation there is arising especially because the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958, made it possible for a number of my constituents to secure a three-year lease. Those leases are terminating this year, and the tenants are being forced out. The result is that the number seeking furnished accommodation is considerably higher than last year. Because of the intensity of the problems caused, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, should cease and make way for a Measure which would deal with the real problems which exist.
I want to instance cases of people now seeking furnished accommodation in my constituency. Last Friday week a family came to see me; the young mother had children of 9 years, 5 years and 18 months. The family had a three-year agreement finishing in September, and the eviction order terminates next Monday. They have five more days in which to find accommodation. They

have trudged from estate agent to estate agent, looking at the kind of furnished accommodation for which one one pays £80 key money and which contains a little linoleum and a wooden chair, which constitutes furniture.
The local authority is inundated with such cases. It will make sure that the family has accommodation, but the mother and the youngest child will be in one hostel, the 9-year-old child at Walthamstow, the 5-year-old child at Chingford and the father in a men's hostel. The mother says that she would rather walk the streets to get enough money to pay for accommodation than have her family split up. All she wants to do is to keep her family together, and she will go to desperate measures to do so. The Government and the House of Commons seem unable to help her. While the Act remains, the Government will still be complacent about such cases.
Week in and week out we get such cases. Similar cases have already been mentioned. What do we do about the pressure on the gas stove on the landing of a place built sixty years ago where the tenants of the separate rooms each morning have to prepare their breakfast? I have a constituent who is a hire-car driver earning £11 10s. per week, and he has a furnished room for which he has to pay £3 10s. weekly. He has a baby, and there are three other children who are in homes elsewhere. Fifty-five per cent, of the accommodation in my constituency is shared. One in every two of my constituents have to share bathrooms and lavatories.
The pressure on these people is enormous. The consequence is that they seek in any way possible to keep their families together even if it means paying exorbitant rents which cripple them financially. The result is that they are unable to make both ends meet and eventually have to go to the various charitable services in the area.

Mr. Mellish: It is said by the Government that in London this is entirely a matter for the county council, and the Government could not care less about it. My hon. Friend comes from Middlesex. I understand that Middlesex is not a housing authority. Perhaps my hon. Friend will get more sense out of the


Government than I have done about what he is supposed to tell his constituents seeing that they cannot blame it on to the Middlesex County Council.

Mr. Pavitt: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Each week I send on to the Minister three or four letters from my constituents, and I ask him to tell me what I am to tell them. In the borough council, we have tried loan sanction in order to buy old houses for families who cannot get a home or furnished accommodation, but we have exhausted the money. We have looked for other provisions whereby we may save these people. We considered whether it would be possible to make them 100 per cent, loans, but we have had to stop that because we had no more money, and the rate of interest makes it impossible to get more.
We see the break up of family life in my constituency, but the Government, because they have prepared magnificent statistics showing that over the whole of Great Britain housing and accommodation total such-and-such, see no reason to do anything substantial in areas where the problem is acute, and year after year they continue this Act.
This is also the problem of people forced into furnished accommodation by a kind of blackmail. When their three-year tenancy ends, the landlord is prepared to give them another year—never another three years—for an additional rent. I am talking now of people who have lived in the same house for 20 or 30 years; they pride themselves on their respectability, and they are getting on in life. When the 1957 Act arrived, they managed to get a three-year agreement. This stretched their resources to their limit, but they managed somehow. But then comes the new one-year agreement, and their means are stretched even more, with the certain knowledge that when twelve months is up they will have the rent raised again. What sort of situation is that, to have constant fear and anxiety hanging over the heads of families? In any other situation, this would be called blackmail, and society would condemn it.

Mr. Mellish: When these people finally have to get out, the Government say that it is nothing to do with them

and that it is the responsibility of the county council.

Mr. Pavitt: I invited the previous Minister to visit my constituency on a Friday night, not to address a public meeting but to listen to the heart-breaking stories of these people as they come to me. I asked him merely to sit in private and listen to these people who try to live in decency. I extend that invitation now to the present Minister.
If this Act is further continued, the Government will continue in complacency. They are satisfied with their record and will pass the buck to the-local authorities. Until there is legislation providing security of tenure, we shall be faced with this breakdown in housing, with all its affects on family life, causing juvenile delinquency and the evils which stem from lack of stability in the home.
I recently heard a speech by the secretary of the National Council of Social Service, who said that the social problems of the 1960s in all their aspects stemmed from the break up of the home because of the housing situation in some areas. I hope that the Committee will not let the Government continue this Act. If it is cleared out of the way, then there may be fresh hope for the local authorities and county councils and others who want to do something for families suffering under this situation.

11.0 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: For many years I have endeavoured to point out that one of the most important features of the protection of the home rested in the security provided by the Rent Acts, including the Act which we are discussing. I cannot understand why the Government have not yet been able to see that the continuation of this Measure is nothing more nor less than a smokescreen, as must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about the position.
Anyone who studies the list of cases coming before the tribunals—I believe that the reports come out monthly or quarterly—will see that the numbers are getting fewer and fewer. That leads the Government to pride themselves on: the view that the cases are disappearing.

Mr. Graham Page: The Report of the Minister of Housing has already been quoted, and that shows that the number of cases coming before the tribunals has recently increased. Why does the hon. Member say that they have decreased?

Sir B. Janner: I invite the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to study the lists for himself. He will find, for instance, that there was a tribunal in Leicester which was doing excellent work. The Government thought that it was not necessary and decided that there should be one tribunal for a number of districts because there were not enough cases for one tribunal for Leicester.
What is the use of asking someone to go before a tribunal so that the tribunal can say that his rent is excessive, when it is known that the landlord has power to turn him out within a limited period? It is true that once the standard rent has been fixed for furnished accommodation, the landlord cannot charge more than that amount for precisely the same furnished accommodation; but what is the use of that when the landlord knows that when he has turned out the tenant, he will be able to get three or four times that amount?
I am sure that with his knowledge of these matters the hon. Member for Crosby will not disagree with me when I say that the tragedy of the situation is that that is what happens when the house becomes vacant. I accuse the Government of having destroyed the homes of the people—never mind the houses—by deliberately making a house decontrolled when it becomes vacant.
That is the essence of the whole position. The Government have ruined what was built up years ago by the Labour Party—and some of their own supporters—by deliberately misleading the country into the belief that sufficient housing would be available if people were turned out of their homes. It applies everywhere in the country. That is why we are critical.
All other circumstances being different, the Act was a good Act. I supported it, as did every other hon. Member who appreciated the need for it. It was important to prevent people from charging exorbitant rents simply

because they had put in a few sticks and pieces of furniture. The country was up in arms about it and compelled the House to pass the Act to prevent that kind of thing. If the landlord exercised the right to turn a tenant out, he had to re-let the premises furnished at the rent fixed by the tribunal, or to sell them, or to let them at a rental controlled under the Rent Act.
But the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realises—he would be foolish if he did not—that today there are hundreds of homeless families who do not know where to go. There is not enough available accommodation which people are prepared to offer to give the homeless roofs over their heads. They are given separate roofs over their separate heads, but what is the use of providing separate homes for the father, for the mother and for the children? What right have we in this age to permit that kind of scandal to prevail? It is a scandal—an undeniable scandal.
Sir Gordon, you said a moment ago that it was not relevant to discuss the Rent Act. I do not hold that view, because if the Rent Act had not been passed—

The Chairman: I said that hon. Members could not discuss alternative legislation. They can discuss the Amendment.

Sir B. Janner: But if we did not use that kind of illustration it would be impossible to examine the effect of the Act under discussion. The Act by itself sounds wonderful; taking it in a vacuum, everyone would ask, "Why are they arguing against it? It sounds reasonable. A landlord ought not to be allowed to charge more than is reasonable. What are hon. Members complaining about? "We can complain only if the other circumstances affecting the homes of the people are such as we have described.
I make an appeal to the Government. It is not too late even for a Conservative Government to think again on this subject. By all means let them keep this Act if they are prepared to take such further action as will make it effective and not a farce.
They should do that. After all, this is not a party issue. Human lives are


at stake and it is difficult to talk about this subject without being emotional. One only has to see some of these people and talk with them. They come to hon. Members—and my hon. Friends have pointed this out—and ask what they are to do. If they are told to find furnished apartments they reply that they cannot.
But if they find furnished accommodation, do not the Government realise that nobody with a grain of sense will to give up the little security he has by going to a tribunal and asking whether the amount of rent being charged is correct? That is the whole point. The Rent Acts were not produced just out of the air. The Government know that when men went to the First World War, and to subsequent wars, in the interests of the country, rents were raised, there was an outcry in the country and the hand of the Government was forced and, fortunately, security was obtained.
It is a farce for anyone to suggest today that there is security in the provision of houses. It is a scandalous thing and I lay the blame at the door of the Government. What right had they to withdraw any protective measures, unless and until they knew that people would not be wandering about homeless? What are the Government doing? With whom are they playing? With whose lives? Are they here for that purpose? Let them go to these people and ask how good things are for them—people who are constantly being told how good things are. Why do not the Government ask the magistrates how good it is that the homes of our people are being broken by the actions of this Government? Let them think again, for there is still time to repent over the line of action they have taken.
I appeal to the Government—this will probably fall on deaf ears, but we live in hope—to realise the disastrous condition in which the country finds itself. I urge them to reduce interest rates, give local authorities a chance to build and wait until every person has a home in which to live. Allow this capital expenditure. It is worth it because, in the long run, everyone will benefit. Let the homes be provided so that we have a fair, economic market and so that the Government will have carried out their job of seeing that the citizens of this country are housed.

Mr. Richard Marsh: It has been obvious during this debate that the question of furnished accommodation is second to the problem of housing generally. For London hon. Members it is a problem near to their hearts but, as several of my hon. Friends have said, this difficulty is not confined to any one area. If it were there would be some hope, because people could say that while the position in London is tragic, perhaps some day they might find jobs elsewhere and be offered alternative accommodation.
The tragedy is that there is no real hope for these people. It is not that they are in difficulties for a limited period; that they can go into furnished accommodation and then look forward to getting something more reasonable. There is no hope for them. Week after week they go to the advice bureaux and to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee with the most tragic stories.
11.15 p.m.
Every hon. Member has had the experience where constituents turn after after half an hour's discussion of tragic circumstances and point their fingers at the hon. Member concerned, saying, "Can you deny that I have a good case?" Of course, hon. Members know that they cannot deny that a good case has been made. We say to constituents "No, the position is terrible," and the constituent asks what is to be done about it. We have to tell our constituents that there is nothing we can do; that there is no future for them.
Yet there is an even more serious problem. We have discussed tonight the problem of human lives and the breaking up of families in a completely one-sided atmosphere; an atmosphere which shows clearly a complete lack of interest, of humanity, and of compassion on the part of hon. Members opposite. They are completely disinterested. They sit there—that is, those who are still here—and say nothing while hon. Member after hon. Member on this side gets up to make specific points. There is no answer from: the Government, or even from the Government side of the Committee, not only because the Government have no answer to offer, but because they have no interest. They do not care.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we have had no answer from the Government, or any speeches from hon. Members opposite, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) is present and he argued about this on television the other night. Perhaps he can answer some points if we put the questions to him.

Mr. Marsh: It would be unfair to say that among hon. Members opposite there is no interest in housing, and this evening we have had the odd giggle or the odd interjection. We have had the appearance on television of the hon. Gentleman opposite, as my hon. Friend says—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Nauseating—well paid.

Mr. Marsh: Well, it is not for me to say anything about the reasons, but we have from time to time had the smart reply from Her Majesty's Ministers on this matter of housing and the results of the difficulties which arise from the legislation governing furnished accommodation—legislation which we on this side would like to remove.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) recently asked if he could interrupt the Minister because the L.C.C. had four thousand re-lets a year and the Minister had suggested that the L.C.C. could rehouse families of homeless people in some of those re-lets. The answer was that all these re-lets were being used to cope with slum clearance.

The Chairman: I do not see how this can arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: What I am seeking to do, Sir Gordon, is to demonstrate that the legislation which we on this side of the Committee are anxious to remove contains a number of deficiencies. There are deficiencies inherent in it and one of those deficiencies is responsible for aggravating the already tragic housing situation in this country. What we suggest is that, far from receiving from the Government any reasoned replies to the objections which we put, in fact what we receive from hon. Members opposite—apart from the odd interjection and

the superb, workmanlike performance on television—and from Ministers are really not answers at all to the problems arising from this legislation. They do not assist the homeless people at all and are only given to show what a clever man the Minister is. With your per mission, Sir Gordon, I should like to give this demonstration. The Minister had suggested that the L.C.C. should use those 4,000 re-lets a year for those families who were rendered homeless. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North pointed out that that accommodation was necessary for slum clearance, for people removed as a result of new road construction—

The Chairman: I do not see how this affects the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946.

Mr. Marsh: Sir Gordon, if the Act was worth while and had the effect we would like it to have, these problems would not be so serious because fewer people would be on the housing lists. The present problem arises largely because of the working of the Act; because of its inadequacies and the number of people still rendered homeless. One gets the impression, Sir Gordon, that you are not very happy with this line of argument, so I shall not pursue it further except to say that the Minister's answer was:
I am saying that this is the London County Council's own decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 661.]
That was very clever. We are talking of the shortage of homes, and the Minister, whose mellifluous tones we were once accustomed to hearing on the radio, talking about people's stomachs, can only make the smart reply.
In my constituency, on the sunny heights of Blackheath, there are a lot of very large houses. During the war much of that property was requisitioned and was of considerable assistance to our housing problem. Now, of course, it has been derequisitioned and put on the market. This is the very type of property that is freely available. It is now furnished accommodation—and there is quite a lot of furnished accommodation in Blackheath.
In Greenwich, we have 1,800 families on our A list—the priority people—and 250 of them have urgent medical priorities; their accommodation has been certified as seriously affecting their health. The national average earnings at present amount to something under £15 a week. When these people consult me on Friday evenings I can say, "Yes, there is accommodation. You go up the hill, where you can have a furnished room at Blackheath, with a beautiful view, if you pay six or seven guineas a week." Of course, they cannot pay that amount. It is completely out of their reach.
What does the Act do? It gives them protection. It says that if the rents are unreasonable they can go to the rent tribunal—a wonderful idea. They can go to a rent tribunal set up by a Labour Government to enable people to get justice, but today they have no security of tenure. They can say to the tribunal that one room is not worth seven guineas a week, and the tribunal will probably agree with them. The following week they get a letter from the landlord saying, "Sorry—out you go." They go to court and get a three months' extension, and they can go back later and get another three months' extension—if they are very lucky.
We have a situation in which the price of furnished accommodation in this great Metropolis is out of the reach of a large number of people who are living in the worst conditions; people who, because their incomes are so low, find it impossible to buy homes. They are right outside the market for house purchase, so they are forced into accommodation they cannot afford. A beneficent Government has, of course, provided legislation designed to protect them from being exploited, but if they dare use that course they stand a chance of losing even the accommodation which they already have.
One can have all sorts of arguments about how this situation arises. From comfortable accommodation enjoyed by hon. Members, very few of whom—including myself—suffer from the problems of bad housing conditions, one can suggest all sorts of alternatives, but I come back to the original point that I was making. Not one hon. Member opposite even cares sufficiently—

Mr. Graham Page: Nonsense.

Mr. Marsh: If the contribution of the hon. Gentleman, who is either asleep or ill, to London's housing situation, after a debate which has continued for something like four hours, is "Nonsense" from a supine position, it will not give very much confidence to his constituents. Surely he has something constructive to say. Perhaps he may even have a word of sympathy. Perhaps he can explain how his Government got the people into this position. I will give way to the hon. Member if he wishes to say anything. Apparently, he does not. I am sorry, but I thought that no hon. Member could confine himself to merely saying "Nonsense" and having nothing to say to back it up. I thought that he was making a comment on my speech rather than on the barrenness of his own mental processes.
We are faced with a situation where there is no other accommodation available for people within the Metropolitan area, except furnished accommodation. That accommodation is perfectly appalling. All one has to do in order to call it furnished accommodation is, not to make it habitable—oh, no—but merely to put some sticks of furniture into it, and perhaps some curtains and linoleum so that it has the appearance of being furnished. It can be rat-ridden and bug-infested. Having supplied the vestiges of furniture, one can take the potential tenant on one side and say, "But, of course, before you move in, it is customary to pay the odd few pounds". We are told that this is against the law. There cannot be an hon. Member who has not been faced at some time with a constituent complaining bitterly about the fact that the was charged £40 or £50 key money, who took no receipt for it—indeed, none was offered—and who paid it willingly because it was the only way of getting in.

Mr. John Diamond: It is universal.

Mr. Pavitt: Has my hon. Friend met constituents who, when they pay the money, are told that if they leave they are sure to be able to get it back from the next tenant? Then they come to the constituency bureau to find out what redress they have because they have not been able to get the money back again.

Mr. Marsh: This is, of course, a very common process. I think it is a confidence trick. It is easy to be critical of these people and say that they should read the small print and find out what their rights are. When I first came down from Oxford with one wife and a small baby, I lived in one room—[An Hon. Member: "Only one wife?"] I think it is always essential in a Commonwealth Parliament, where it is not always accepted that a Member necessarily has only one wife, to make the position quite clear. After all, reports of debates here go to other Commonwealth countries where this may not always be the rule.
In those circumstances, we all lose interest in the small print and the details, for the most important thing is to get accommodation and to get the family together. If somebody asks for an exorbitant amount of key money or an illegal payment, it is something that one worries about later, after one has got into the accommodation. Even worse than the sort of thing referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), I have had people come to me who, after paying out £40, £50 or £60 key money to get into a flat, have then wanted to know whether there was some way in which they could borrow the money because they were in serious difficulty about paying it back.
Should we allow the Act to continue for a further twelve months and sit back, saying that this is what happens, we can do nothing about it and, after all, Parliament is really powerless? If that were true, it would be very serious. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, for whom I and, I think, most hon. Members have the deepest affection, appeared on a television programme—

Mr. A. Lewis: My hon. Friend should speak for himself.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: I have a deep affection for all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, and I find that there are hon. Members opposite who are misguided rather than basically evil-intention. [Interruption.] It would take

a long time to go through them all, but there are some hon. Members who are well-intentioned.

Mr. Pavitt: Would my hon. Friend say that they see according to their lights, but their lights are rather dim?

Mr. Marsh: I agree with my hon. Friend; they have always struck me as a rather dim lot as well. But to return to the serious point. Parliament is not in a position to say that it has no responsibility for the situation which now exists. There are in this country and the London area not hundreds but tens of thousands of people with no reasonable accommodation at all. In the London area there are people living in workhouses. They may be called all sorts of nice names. Call them lodges or whatever name one chooses, they are workhouses. Although the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary may look pained about it, that is what they are.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): That is not fair to the London County Council.

Mr. Marsh: The Minister should not try to make that sort of clever debating point. He knows very well that he would not spend a night in one of them if he could possibly help it, and he would not allow any member of his family to do so. He cannot shift the blame on to the London County Council because, as he knows equally well, the London County Council cannot avoid it, since it has no alternative. These places are establishments in the Western world where husbands are separated from their wives and families at the gateway because they may not enter with them, where families, if they are lucky, live in barrack accommodation. If the Parliamentary Secretary has been inside one of them, he will know what they are like. He knows that the London County Council cannot pull them down and rebuild, and he knows also that the problem is not the London County Council's but is the result of the complete collapse and failure of the Government's housing policy.
It is high time that hon. Members opposite, and particularly Ministers, stopped sheltering behind the slick reply and getting one over on the London County Council and told us what they intend to do. That is what we want to know.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that we are discussing an Amendment which deals purely with the continuance or discontinuance of one Act of Parliament.

Mr. Marsh: I appreciate that, Sir William, and I am grateful for your guidance. But it is impossible to consider our legislation governing furnished accommodation except as part of the housing situation which exists today. If the Act were abolished, which is what we on this side of the Committee are hoping may transpire, what would be the effect? At some stage, of course, someone would have to put something rather different in its place, but one cannot discuss that now.
Our objections to this legislation and to this situation which arises from it are, first, that the policies of the Government force people into accommodation covered by this legislation and leave them with no alternative. It is the housing policy pursued by the Government which makes inevitable many of the abuses of this piece of legislation to which we take exception this evening. Having been forced to shelter under the rather leaky umbrella of this legislation, they then find themselves in accommodation frequently of a sub-standard nature, accommodation in which the furniture is a mockery, accommodation of which the cost is in many cases excessive.
The legislation is alleged to enable these people to have redress against excessive charges for inadequate accommodation, but the moment they attempt to take that remedy another deficiency in the legislation reveals itself, in that there is no security of tenure, and they find themselves in the rest centre accommodation we were discussing. The path they tread, the route they take, finishes in some of this barrack-like accommodation.
It is a path which leads to a situation where children find themselves separated from their families and in the care of the London County Council's Children's Committee, where husbands are divided from their wives and are told to find accommodation elsewhere, where wives are living in the sort of accommodation we have been describing. That is a path which starts in many cases with the inadequacy of this legislation.

Mr. Reynolds: In 60 per cent, of them.

Mr. Marsh: As my hon. Friend says, who is an expert in these matters, something like 64 per cent, of these cases are the result of the inadequacies of the legislation to which we on this side of the Committee take exception this evening.
What we are hoping is that we have reached a stage where the tragedy of this in personal terms is obvious to both sides. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I am not looking for votes. There is no immediate party advantage to be made of this situation, but it bewilders us that we find a complete lack of interest in this subject among hon. Members opposite. Is it unreasonable that we ask the Minister, when he replies to this debate, to tell us that the Government will withdraw this legislation because it clearly does not work, because it results in thousands of ordinary decent people, who work for their living, who fight for their country, who send their kids to school, who go out decently dressed, having to live like animals?

Mr. A. Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Act we are discussing does not expire till April next year, and that it would be possible for the Government to agree to the amendment of the Act, if not its repeal, and between now and April to prepare permanent legislation to deal adequately with the really horrible and distressing situation which faces many thousands of people in London and the other great cities?

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is, of course, the point. The Government can at this stage do something. This is not just an entertaining exercise we are embarking upon this evening. This is a request to the Government, in the time they now have,


to try to find an answer to the problem—which surely hon. Members on both sides agree exists. There is no dispute between us, I would hope—though I do not know what are the views of hon. Members opposite, for they have not given us the benefit of their opinions—

Mr. Diamond: They are not allowed to.

Mr. Marsh: I do not know, but one would admit that there is no dispute between us as to the seriousness of the situation, as to the unwholesomeness of the situation. We talk a great deal nowadays about the need to defend freedom. This is not a metaphysical argument about abstract freedom.
How can the Government persuade our people that the Western way of life is a good one, that it is superior to that of other ideologies when in the Western way of life, in Westminster itself, children live in children's homes because there are no houses for their parents, when husbands live in doss houses because they cannot go in with their wives, and when wives live in barrack-like buildings where they queue up each morning for their meals? This is not an abstract argument but a serious one to which the Government, if they take a serious view of this problem, should, at some stage, apply themselves. It is no good saying to thousands of people who have no homes and no possible hope of having a home in the foreseeable future, "Ah, yes, but just think: you are free."
We pass this legislation year after year. We have had debates month after month on these tragic conditions and 'the situation has got steadily worse. It is getting even worse now. I feel sure, Sir William, that you would not allow me to develop the effect of Britain's possible entry into the Common Market at great length, but I do not think that there is any doubt that, whatever the rights and wrongs of going in, the effect is likely to involve us in a greater strain on our housing resources than there is even at present.
The people of London and other parts of the country are asking the Government to give some lead, to give them some light and some ray of hope in

the morass of unhappiness in which they have been plunged. It is no good blaming London County Council, because the council is dependent for many of its resources on governmental assistance. The situation which exists as a result of this Act is aggravated by the Rent Act. They are inseparable things. The situation is the direct result of the policy of Conservative Governments and Conservative Members of Parliament.
At the General Election they may get away with it again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, as hon. Members say, they may yet do so. They have very good public relations. Our hope is that, even if they get the votes, at some stage some of them may wake up to the facts, have a twinge of conscience, and make the odd contribution to debates on this subject, get some idea of what the Government intend to do, and show some real feeling about the matter. It would be a tragedy if it were thought by large numbers of people that the British Government did not care about the circumstances in which thousands of people live. This does not happen by accident. It happens by Government policy, and one would hope that at some stage the Government would begin to agree.

Mr. A. Evans: On a point of order. I should like some guidance on procedure. The House is in Committee. Would it be in order, therefore, for any hon. Member on this side who has already spoken to catch your eye, Sir William, on another occasion or other occasions?

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be in order for any hon. Member in any part of the Committee to catch the eye of the Chair.

Hon. Members: More than once?

The Deputy-Chairman: More than once.

Mr. Diamond: Would it be in order if any hon. Member opposite attempted to catch your eye provided that he has the permission of the Whips to do so?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have just said that it would be perfectly in order for any hon. Member to catch the eye of the Chair, more than once if the hon. Member desires.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Sir William—a serious point of order. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I was not sure about the second point of order, but the first one was very good.
Sir William, we have been debating this matter for three or four hours, and it is of some importance. I have previously referred to the relationship of the Chair with hon. Members. If this is a debate which you consider to be important and worth while, is there anything that you can do to compel the Minister to be here to answer it?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair to deal with.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. A. Lewis: As I understand your advice to the Committee, Sir William, the Amendment can be discussed only if we refer to whether or not the 1946 Act should be continued, and we cannot suggest any alterations to it. So I want to explain why I feel that the Act should not be continued in 1961.
I am not against the Act as it was framed and introduced. In 1946 it was a very good Act. We then had a very good Government who did their utmost to see that it was operated and the people advised how to obtain its benefits. Every help was given to tenants in furnished and unfurnished accommodation.
I seek to show that, although in 1946 there were certain circumstances which made the Act of value, the changed circumstances of today make it useless. In 1946 there was a huge housing programme initiated by the Government to encourage local authorities to build houses to rent, and every help was given to local authorities by subsidies and in other ways. Especially in the blitzed areas, such as Bermondsey, Deptford. Greenwich and West Ham, every help was given to enable local authorities to get on with rehousing so that those who had no accommodation could be put into decent council dwellings. But since the present Government have been in office there has been a complete change. So far from their trying to help local authorities, from 1950 they have put every obstacle they could in the way of local authority housing.
In 1946, the circumstances were very different. There was then no such thing as the speculative building which we see all round us now. There was no such thing as huge garages going up within every hundred yards or so. There was no attempt by the Labour Government to prevent local authorities getting the money for housing. The position today is completely reversed. It is a speculator's paradise for the Clores and Cottons who are making huge fortunes and are able to get materials for offices, betting shops and bingo halls. This is the "bingo paradise", and it is what the Government have encouraged. Every assistance is given to the speculative builder and the big financier at the expense of the poor devils who have no homes.
Hon. Members smile, but that is true. They should come to areas like mine and ask these people about the difference between 1946, when every assistance was given local authorities, and now, when the Government hamper the local authorities. In my area, we lost more than one-third of rateable property in the blitz, and the rest was damaged. The council was pleased when the Government of the day gave it the chance to requisition the large number of empty houses. But then this Government derequisitioned those houses, giving them back to the landlords, many of whom had fled from the blitz to safe areas like Bournemouth, Boston and Bath.
These landlords sold the houses at huge profits or rented them out as furnished rooms to make a fortune that way—again at the expense of those who stayed in West Ham during the blitz. Not only have the Government cut or abolished subsidies but they have also raised the Bank Rate to such a figure that neither local authorities nor private individuals can afford to borrow money to get on with housing.
West Ham was lauded and praised during the War for having stood up to Hitler, but now, when it needs money to replace houses destroyed in the blitz, it cannot get it. The young couples find that they cannot even get money from building societies or banks with which to buy private houses.

Mr. Philip N. Hocking: Last night was the anniversary of the big raid on Coventry. That city, like the hon. Member's constituency, was


badly blitzed. The strange thing is that there we have managed to carry on with building work in spite of the restrictions that he suggests have been imposed.

Mr. Lewis: I agree that building is going on. I am not suggesting that it has all stopped. Speculative building is going on. But I am suggesting—and the facts are proved—that every obstacle has been put in the way of local authorities wishing to get on with the job. I have given evidence that private individuals have been affected as well as local authorities.
It is now almost impossible for the lower paid worker to get a mortgage from a building society. If hon. Members do not believe that, let them go to their constituents and interview people earning £10 to £14 a week who have a family to support and try to get them a mortgage through a building society. They will find it almost impossible. The Government have given every encouragement to the private speculative builder as against the local authorities. It will be found in my constituency and, I am sure, in the rest of the country that this Act is not now serving the purpose for which it was originally intended. It was a good Act when it was introduced and when those who were suffering from exorbitant rents were encouraged to go to the rent tribunals, but since hon. Members opposite have been in office, every obstacle has been put in the way of those unfortunate people.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) to say that the Minister had said that more cases had been going to rent tribunals since the Government began to close them down. If that is the case, why are the Government closing down and amalgamating rent tribunals? In my constituency there was a rent tribunal which did a good job and which was kept busy. It was situated in the Barking Road. In order to save a few shillings, the Government decided to amalgamate the tribunals in West Ham with others. They amalgamated them with Islington tribunals. Do you think, Sir William, that a tenant with a complaint against his landlord charging him £5, £6, or £7 a week rent for one room will go from Barking Road in West Ham to Islington

to make his complaint, knowing that he will probably be turfed out if he does? The amalgamated tribunals have been sited in districts to which the tenants will not and cannot find the time to go, not to mention the cost of a journey which may be from one end of London to the other.
I think that the hon. Member was right when he said that the number of cases was increasing, but, far from cutting down the number of tribunals, the Government should be increasing them.

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) will appreciate that if someone takes advantage of his right to go to a rent tribunal to complain about his rent, it necessarily follows that he must lose his flat, or house, or room, because he will get only three months' security of tenure. I suggest that in West Ham, as in Bermondsey, there are people who would like to use the rent tribunals, but who know that if they do, they will eventually be evicted and have nowwhere to go. The question we have to put to the Government is how those people are to overcome that.

Mr. Lewis: I was about to come to that and I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of it.
Far from the Act being of any use, tenants are scared of using it because of their fear of eviction. These great patriotic landlords are now getting to the stage of ordering evictions whatever the tenants think and whether or not they are scared of eviction. They are turning them out into the streets, and they are being assisted and encouraged by the Government in doing so. The Government are responsible for the problem of the homeless in London and all the other big cities and in the suburbs. They are deliberately creating the problem of the homeless, because they have given every help to the landlord. The Minister may jeer at the L.C.C.

12 m.

Mr. Rippon: I was not jeering at the L.C.C. I said it was unfair to the L.C.C. to describe its accommodation as workhouse accommodation. Whatever one may say about the L.C.C. in other respects, it does its best to keep its existing accommodation up to the highest standard possible.

Mr. Lewis: The L.C.C. officers do their utmost for the ratepayers and do a wonderful job, but it is not easy to convert a workhouse into a decent place in which people can live. We have a number of homeless people in West Ham, mainly ex-Service men and other young couples. Men who have done their National Service have no homes after they return from the Services and have to go into workhouses. The West Ham Council does its utmost to make these places pleasant to live in, but it is not easy to convert a workhouse—whether it is called a workhouse, a hospital or anything else.
It is right that a husband should have to go into one part of the building, that his wife should have to go into another part and that their children should have to go elsewhere? They have no normal family life, through no fault of their own. It is not their fault that they have been turned out of rented accommodation or that their house has been decontrolled by the Rent Act and they have been turned out into the streets. They go to a welfare officer, who says, "I am sorry. The half-way house, the workhouse, the hospital"—call it what we will—"is full, and the only suggestion which I can make is that you go to the police station and ask them to put you up for the night." That is happening in an area where people suffered night in and night out for weeks on end during the war. But the Government are not only perpetuating that situation, they are encouraging it.
I read in the Press today that the Chancellor is alleged to have said that the pause is likely to be ending. I wish to God, if that is a Parliamentary expression, that the Chancellor or one of the other Ministers would ask some of the landlords to make a pause.

Mr. Marsh: Before he quotes the Chancellor, my hon. Friend should be careful to make sure that the Chancellor has not been misrepresented or misreported in the Press. He should wait for the Treasury version.

Mr. Lewis: That is another point. We can never trust the remarks of Ministers, because we do not know whether what they say is true or whether they have been misreported or whether they meant what they said when they

said it. Ministers say one thing today and another thing tomorrow.

Mr. Mellish: May I take my hon. Friend back to the point on which he was interrupted by the Minister? There has been a suggestion that the expression "workhouse" is a slight on the L.C.C. Will he take it from me that these places were designed for what were called the genuine problem family, who needed a half-way house; some even had to learn how to live a married life. It was never envisaged that they would be used for the genuinely homeless. It is because they are trying to meet their difficulties in buildings which were never designed for this purpose that the L.C.C. is being criticised by the Government and even on television by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith).

Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend. The West Ham Council is being blamed by people who do not know—and by Conservatives. The truth, of course, is that the Government are really responsible.
If sufficient houses are not available because of the restrictive policy this Government have adopted towards the actions of the local authorities, it is quite obvious that these authorities must put these people somewhere—in halfway houses, hospitals, workhouses or whatever one likes to call these establishments. What else can the authorities do?
I do not intend to argue whether the word "workhouses" should be used to describe these places. It is immoral, unjust and highly unfair to tell a chap who has been serving his Queen and country that when he comes home the best we can do for him and his family is to offer them a space in a half-way house, a workhouse, a rest centre—any term one likes to adopt to describe these establishments.
I have dozens of constituents who are in this position. They should realise that this Act, which is supposed to help people living in furnished houses, is of no use whatever because of the actions of the Government. The poor devils about whom I am speaking are being turfed out of their homes because of the Government. As I say, I am not going to blame the L.C.C. the Tory


council of Holborn or any other Tory council. The fault rests squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Housing and the Government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made many appeals for restraint. There have been wage pauses. People have been asked to go carefully. But I cannot recall a single occasion during the ten years this Government have been in office when any Minister, past or present, has once asked the landlords to have a pause with regard to rent increases, or at least to go a bit more carefully. Although no hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken part in this debate many Tories are, in fact, directors of property companies. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite are associated with the various property owners' protection societies. Even if the Government will not act, surely some of those hon. Gentlemen could ask their boards of directors of these property protection societies to help.
They could do it, and I can tell them how. Plenty of flats and houses are available. One has only to pick up a copy of the Sunday Observer—any issue—to find vacant dwellings in Park Lane for 40 guineas, 60 guineas, even 70 guineas—and 25 guineas too. Others are available in Berkeley Square at similar prices. I do not know how anyone can afford to pay 40 or 50 guineas a week for such accommodation. They probably write it off for tax purposes and put it down to their companies.
Here is a chance for the Government to step in and requisition these places. I would be willing to send some of my tenants from West Ham to these flats. I am sure that they would be quite pleased, even though the accommodation is not in the salubrious area of West Ham.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but to discuss all the alternative things that could be done would not be in order on this Amendment which deals with either the continuation or discontinuation of one Act of Parliament.

Mr. Lewis: When I started my speech, Sir William, you may recollect that I said I wanted to point out that while this Act was good in 1946, when it was

passed, and that while from 1946 to 1951 it was right to keep it on the Statute Book because the Government of the day were then helping and assisting people, I went on to say that from 1951 up to 1961 there has arisen a completely different set of circumstances. That now makes this Act not only obsolete, but quite unnecessary. I was explaining why I was supporting the Amendment and why I think that the circumstances now do not warrant this Act.
In 1946 there were not all these vacant places in Park Lane. There were not the speculators, the Clores and the Cottons, getting rich at the expense of the ordinary people. I explained that the circumstances are quite different from what they were in 1946 and tried to prove that they show that this Act, while a very good one then, is now of no use at all. I do not suggest what the Government should do; for one thing, I should be out of order if I did. I do not even suggest that the Government should amend the Rent Act, or even abolish it. I do not suggest any new legislation, but only that the Government should see that the circumstances which obtained in 1946, and which made this a good, workable, and sucessful Act then, should be applied today.
All the circumstances operating in 1946 should be operating today. Then I would support the Government. I would support the continuance of this Act. If the Government controlled speculative building and stopped the garages and so on, and put the position back to what it was in 1946, then I would say to my right hon. and hon. Friends, "I cannot support this Amendment", but, as things are, I must. I say that, not because I particularly object to the content of the Act, as such, but because this Government have so played about with the destinies of the homeless people that this Act is of no use at all.
The Government must do something to help the homeless people. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich has said something about people coming to see him on this tragic issue. All hon. Members for every constituency which has any industrial or commercial background have literally thousands of people coming to their "surgeries" each


week complaining of this matter of housing. Some of them are actually homeless.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not a fact that nine out of ten of the housing cases are problems and that hon. Members opposite have heard them as well? One hon. Member has said he has a constant stream of people, so that this is obviously something shared by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but we cannot get hon. Members opposite to take part in this debate. We cannot get them up to say whether they think that the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act should or should not continue. If only they would get up and say it should, then that would help. They do not, but they can go on television and get well paid for it. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) laughs and smiles. Hon. Members opposite do not take part in debates here, but if there is fifteen or thirty guineas payment attached to it, then they are there.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not know whether the hon. Member attended the housing debate we had a week last Monday but, if he did, I hope that he will recall that I took part in that debate.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I sat through the whole of that debate—

Mr. Johnson Smith: Withdraw.

Mr. Lewis: I will not withdraw. I sat through the whole of that debate. I asked Mr. Speaker whether I could be called. I have only spoken in eight debates in sixteen years—including my maiden speech and two Adjournment debates—but I was not called. I repeat that there are hon. Members, not now present in this Committee—some have not even troubled to attend—who, if there is a chance to go on "Any Questions?" on television, will be there. In "Any Questions?", for which they get thirty guineas, they would explain why this Act should or should not be continued. They will debate it there, but they will not debate it here.
They will not even interject here. No hon. Member opposite has given any logical reason why this Measure should or should not be continued or why he will vote for or against this Amendment. They are not interested. They may interject, to safeguard what they regard as their honour, to say whether or not they were on television. I am not interested in whether they get thirty or fifty guineas. I only know that I shall never get that opportunity. I have been in Parliament for sixteen years, and have never been on radio or television. Perhaps it is because I am too much the Joe Blunt. I say what I want to say in the House or in the Committee and I am not afraid to do so.
I am not concerned with what hon. Members may have said in the earlier housing debate—this is another debate—

Mr. A. Evans: During the whole course of this debate not a single hon. Member opposite has given the Committee the benefit of his knowledge. In the face of this tragic problem, it is rather shocking that the Government benches should remain silent.

Mr. Lewis: And not only have there been only about half a dozen hon. Members opposite present but, to the best of my knowledge and belief there have never been more than two Ministers present, and—with great respect to them—two junior Ministers at that. Except for the Leader of the House—who is, of course, the servant of the House—not once has there been one Minister present to support the Minister of Housing in his desire to have this Act continued. A few hon. Members have been sitting on the back benches opposite, smiling and sniggering on occasion, but why has no Minister been present? Yet tomorrow night, on another issue—and I use this only in passing, as an illustration—they will talk about the terrible housing problem confronting the people because of coloured immigrants. They will not say tonight the extent to which this problem has been aggravated by this Government and these Ministers.
The Government have deliberately accentuated the problem. They have made it more difficult for the local authorities to build, but they have made it easier for the big landlords to evict


tenants from these rent-controlled premises. They have made it easier for them to evict people from non-furnished accommodation and, of course, they have made it more difficult for the man who wants to become an owner-occupier. And then they have the audacity to say that they mean to get on with this housing job.
Sir William, who has stopped them doing just that over the last ten years? Nobody has prevented them. If they were to say that because they wanted to continue this present rent control Act they would come forward with a huge programme to provide 400,000 or 500,000 houses a year, not a person in this Committee would stop them. We would all support them. But now they put every obstacle, difficulty and restriction in the way of the councils and the private owners.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary is not listening to my hon. Friend. It is a gross discourtesy.

Mr. Rippon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not miss a word of what he is saying.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I can assure him, however, that whether the Minister wants to listen or not, he cannot fail to hear me. I have such a voice that if he goes to the end of the Chamber he can still hear what I am saying. I would point out that there is no senior Minister here at all. Both the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who are present are, with respect to them, junior Ministers. No senior Minister is interested in the subject.
I was dealing with the reason why I support this Amendment. I want to emphasise that I am not opposed to the object and the principles of the Act. Indeed, I am in favour of the Act. I should like to see it continued, if I could receive an assurance from the Minister that he is going to see that it is operated and acted upon. I am not asking for any amending legislation, but if the Minister will see to it that every assistance is given to the

tenants who want to avail themselves of it, if he will see that the Act is carried out by increasing the number of tribunals, that tribunals are established in those areas which have the biggest problem, then I shall be quite willing to reconsider my view. I might even toy with the idea of voting against my own Front Bench. I would consider that. That would be very unusual for me, but I would be quite willing to change my view. But at the moment I must say that I cannot for the life of me see what is the purpose of keeping this Act on the Statute Book if, as has been proved over the years, the Government have no intention of seeing that it is implemented and acted upon.

Mr. John Mackie: While I do not wish to detain the Committee too long, I feel that anything that I can say to emphasise the shocking housing situation should be said.
I am not so slick-witted as some of my colleagues on this side of the Committee, and before going any further should like to protect myself from any intervention, Sir William, by reminding you of the story of the student who, before entering the examination room, was so certain that there would be a question about Napoleon that what he did not know about Napoleon was not worth knowing. But, to his horror, he found that he had to answer a question about Wellington. So he started his answer to the question by saying that before one could fully understand Wellington one had to know all about Napoleon. In order fully to understand this furnished housing situation, one needs to understand fully the whole housing situation.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), I am prepared to issue an invitation to any Member on the Government Front Bench to ac-company me when I meet my constituents once every three weeks and hear the harrowing tales that I have to hear. I am sorry that the Leader of the House, who represents the other half of the town of Enfield, is not here to support me in my remarks about the situation in that town where we have 3,000 families, out of a total population of 110,000, with no housing accommodation. It is all very well for the Government Front


Bench to talk about how much has been done for housing in general. They should come down to see what the true circumstances of people are and tell us what they will do in particular cases. That is the problem which faces the Member of Parliament in his constituency today. It is really pathetic.
During the past few months, the number of cases of people being put out of furnished premises has greatly increased. I am quite sure that, often, they are not put out because they could in the circumstances be put out but because they have accepted a solicitor's letter or something of the kind as being an eviction order. Often, it is too late for a Member of Parliament to help. They have accepted notice to quit. I have no doubt that the increase in the number of people put out is due to the effect of the Rent Act. Houses are being sold over people's heads and the tenants of furnished accommodation have to go.
I ask people what rent they have to pay, and I am appalled at the rents which are asked for single rooms with absolutely no facilities at all, with lavatories outside the back door, without hot water or cold water. Often as much as £3, £4 or £5 a week is paid. One of the most tragic reasons for eviction, of course, is that a baby is on the way. Yet it is just the families with children who are most in need. What can I tell them? I appeal to the Government to listen to this. I have to tell such people that it will be five, ten or, in many cases, fifteen years before they are properly housed.
In Enfield, as in any other Middlesex borough, the borough council is the housing authority, of course, but the Middlesex County Council is the welfare authority. It is not easy to have to tell people that they must be evicted before the welfare people can do anything for them. "Wait until you are evicted and out on the street", the Member of Parliament has to say, "and then the Middlesex welfare people will do something for you"—and that something, of course, is to divide the family, telling the husband to go and look for digs, probably, while the mother and children are put into a half-way house or workhouse, whatever it be called. I hope that, when the Greater London Authority Bill comes before the House, we shall find that the boroughs are given more power to deal with those things

themselves, without the present split in authority.
Although much has been said about London and the big towns, this is a problem which affects the whole country. I can give the Committee some instances from my home district in a rural area of north-east Scotland. I myself had a condemned house on my premises. My workman reminded me that the house should be knocked down now that another one had been built in its place, but then a man came to me and asked for somewhere to put his old mother who was living in furnished rooms and was to be put out. This was about twelve years ago. I let that old lady have the house. She was then 70, and I think she is now 82. There she has had to stay all those years, in that house without water, electricity, inside sanitation or anything. That is in a rural area in Scotland.
Recently, I bought a small house in a local town in order to provide, I thought, a house for an old employee who was retiring. I thought I would let it on a service tenancy before I needed it for the employee, but then I had to let it to an old couple who had been turned out of furnished premises and who had nowhere else to go. I have let that house to them. I do not know how long they will live and, so far as I am concerned, it is out of my hands. Recently, again, I changed my system of farming and I had two service houses to let. I was nearly eaten alive, such was the demand for those houses. The number of people turned out of furnished premises in a rural area in north-east Scotland is quite appalling.

The Chairman: I do not think that this comes within the scope of the Amendment, which relates to an Act dealing with England and Wales.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Mackie: You were not in the Chair, Sir Gordon, when at the beginning of my speech I made a plea for guidance, because I wanted to give instances of how the situation was based on the whole housing problem throughout the country. I am sorry if I was out of order. This separation of Scotland is always a bugbear to a Scotsman representing an English seat. Nevertheless, I put that to the Committee to show what the problems are.
The Act, good though it is, is totally inadequate, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) said, and I cannot put it better than he did. Of course, the whole problem rests upon the inadequacy of housing. Only last week I looked at on advertisement on the back of The Times. It said there were 600,000 sq. ft. of office building to let. That was on one day. Flats to accommodate 1,200 couples in my constituency could be provided in that much space. That sort of thing has been going on year after year. I hope that the rumours which we hear, that the Minister is at long last going to take control of that sort of thing, are true.

The Chairman: That does not really arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Mackie: I am sorry if I am digressing. The subject is of such importance that it is difficult to keep to the narrow point.
I would emphasise the necessity for a drive for more and more houses. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North talked of 400,000 or 500,000. I would say it should be 600,000, to help house the people who now have to wait for ten to fifteen years.

Mr. Denis Howell: I want to spend some time at the beginning of my speech, if I can, in examining the Act we are being asked to continue. I find it a rather disgraceful piece of Parliamentary manoeuvring that we are not given any information at all about how the Act is working—information about what the local authorities are doing, information about the penalties, information about the register, information about all these relevant matters, to which I think we should turn our attention for a few minutes before coming again to the general principles which my hon. Friends have quite rightly been emphasising tonight.
First of all, can we be told about the register of rents? Under the Act—Section 3, I think it is—local authorities are bound to keep a register of rents of accommodation affected by the Act. In 1946 and 1947 and 1948, just after the Act was passed, there was a rush of enthusiasm and a desire to do social justice to the population, at a time, just after the war, when the building indus-

try—indeed, all industry—which had been geared to war-time necessities, was being changed to peace-time potential, and the local authorities, under Labour control, set about doing their duty, and the register of rents became effective.
How many of the rents which were registered in those days are relevant to this day? Those of us who represent large cities know perfectly well that the rents then registered are completely irrelevant. Further, it is extremely difficult to see the registers. What inquiries does the Ministry make from time to time of local authorities about the registers? When once a house has been registered the rent is established, and therefore the register should be firmly available to succeeding tenants. But it is very difficult, and tenants do not know their rights in these matters. Indeed, I am forced to say that there have been so many political changes in local authorities since 1948 that a great many members of local authorities do not know their obligations.

Mr. A. Lewis: Is not my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for that is the complete neglect on the part of the Government in advising tenants and in advising the public and in advising local authority representatives what the Act lays down? No action has been taken by the Government.

Mr. A. Evans: May I also point out that under section 8 of the Act the Minister must make regulations covering a number of points and that one requirement is that he must make regulations generally to give effect to the provisions of the Act? The onus, therefore, is on the Minister.

Mr. Howell: I agree. I intended to deal with Section 8, but both interjections have been helpful and relevant.
It is a serious matter in our democracy if tenants do not know and are not allowed to understand their rights and are not encouraged to satisfy themselves about them. If the register of rents is not properly kept and is not properly available, it is a serious situation. I do not believe that the Minister is listening to a word I am saying. I do not know, Sir Gordon, whether you have any powers to make him listen to what hon. Members are saying.

The Chairman: I have no powers to make any hon. Member listen to another hon. Member.

Mr. Howell: I rather suspected it, but I have not heard it laid down officially before. If the debate has done nothing else it will have put on record that the Chair has no powers in these matters.

Mr. A. Lewis: I hope that my hon. Friend will get one point right for the record. He keeps referring to "the Minister". Will he make a note of the fact that the Minister has not been here during the whole of the debate? I want to make it clear that it is the junior Minister who is sitting on the Front Bench opposite. The Minister does not even think it worth while to be here. Will my hon. Friend refer to the Parliamentary Secretary as "the junior Minister" or "the under-Minister"?

Mr. Howell: On the question of etiquette and of courtesy to the Committee, I would point out that the Minister is now also Minister for Welsh Affairs and is affectionately known up and down the valleys of Wales as "Hill, the Pill". He is the first public man to make his name and fame on the radio by publicly referring to the state of our bowels. That being so, it is appropriate that he should have become Minister of Housing and Local Government in view of the chronic constipation of the housing situation.

Mr. A. Lewis: Would I be in order, Sir Gordon, in calling attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present? If not, would you advise me whether I can move that the debate be adjourned?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Howell: Although there are forty hon. Members here at the moment, it is clear that in about two minutes we shall be back where we were because so many are leaving again.

Mr. A. Lewis: I particularly wanted to put this on record because there were only one back-bencher and two Ministers present on the Government side. I thought we ought to have some of the Tories here to listen to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Howell: It was very proper for my hon. Friend to call attention to the fact that hon. Members were not taking an interest in this very important matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: On the hon. Member's side.

Mr. Howell: We are glad to see the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) here. We welcome even such a rude and irrelevant interjection as that. It means something. We hope that he will make a sensible speech. He does not usually make sensible speeches.
It is extremely important that tenants should know their rights in connection with rent registers, that local authorities should conduct themselves in a way to make the Act relevant and that the House should be given information about the subject. I suspect that the Parliamentary Secretary will not give us any information. I have an open attitude on whether to support the continuance of the Act or the Opposition case that it should lapse, but I do not know how any hon. Member can reach an independent conclusion in the absence of factual information from the Government. I have sat here for three or four hours and have heard no attempt to deal with the question of registers of rent.

Mr. A. Lewis: The Government have given no information at all.

Mr. Howell: What local authorities tell tenants where they can find the register? What local authorities take the trouble to appoint staff to implement the provision? If local authorities are charged with implementing the Act, we are entitled to know whether the Minister inquires of them about its implementation. I have served on a local authority for twelve years—I have been on the health committee and the general purposes committee—but I do not remember a single inquiry from the Government about what the local authority was doing to implement this.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us when the Department last inquired of local authorities what they were doing about registers of rents, how they were making them accessible to tenants and ensuring that tenants knew their rights and that landlords who were on the registers by virtue of rent tribunal


decisions were carrying out their obligations? Is it true that if a tenant who has had a rent fixed by a tribunal dies or moves away, incoming tenants have no chance unless the landlord tells them—which is very unlikely—to know that it is a controlled tenancy? What steps are taken by local authorities to ensure that subsequent tenants know when tenancies are registered? The question of the register of rents is an extremely important one.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Reynolds: I agree with my hon. Friend, but even if local authorities were to maintain registers of rents, there is another weak point in the legislation. The register could show that the tribunal had fixed a certain rent for a particular room. The snag is that there is no way in which it can also keep a record of the furniture and other fittings in that room, because it is easy for a landlord to juggle the furniture about and put his rooms in a different pattern, thus altering the property and getting round the tribunal's decision and also any register kept by the local authority.

Mr. Howell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Three criteria are laid down about the sort of accommodation affected. Section 3 (2), lays down that
(a) the prescribed particulars with regard to the contract
must be maintained, together with
(b) a specification of the premises to which the contract relates; and
(c) the rent as approved, reduced or increased by the tribunal, and, in a case in which the approval, reduction or increase is limited to rent payable in respect of a particular period, a specification of that period.

Mr. Diamond: That does not include a provision as to contents, so the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) was most relevant.

Mr. Howell: I see. The Act was put on the Statute Book before the days of television, so that the addition of a television set in the household would mean a change in the contents of the accommodation.

Mr. Marsh: As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) made the point that the specification of premises to

which a contract relates, referred to in Section 3 (2, b), does not include a specification as to contents. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) to agree with that view. One would have thought that a specification of a furnished house or furnished accommodation must involve the furniture within that property. If it does not—and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) says it does not—then the specification is of no purpose, since the criterion leaves the furniture out.

Mr. Howell: I do not think that is correct. Section 3 (2, a) specifically refers to the premises to which the contract relates. That must be right, because when a tribunal is fixing the rent, perhaps the biggest single factor must be the state of the premises and the facilities within those premises. I assume, for the purpose of my argument, that what this means is accommodation in terms of premises. Another relevant factor will be the furniture. A pertinent point is the state of the furniture in the original determination in 1947 or 1948. It will clearly have deteriorated since then, and we are entitled to ask the Minister what the situation is now. Can a decision be reviewed by a tribunal or not?

Mr. Mellish: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has a great knowledge of Soccer, but I did not know that he had any knowledge of legal matters. As he has obviously read the Act more closely than I have, will he help me to get this matter clear?
He is complaining that tenants do not know and are unable to find out what are the conditions within the Act itself, and he is saying that the local authorities are not doing their part in helping to inform the tenants of the position. He wants to know what the Minister has done to ensure that the tenants do know what the position is.
I am one of those who believe that the Act is weak because there is nothing to tell the tenants, apart from that which my hon. Friend quoted, that it would be illegal for the tenant to give the landlord, and equally illegal for the


landlord to accept, any sum of money for so-called furniture. Can he say whether that is covered by the Act? If not, is not that a very good reason why the Act should not be continued?
Is it not a fact that one of the biggest problems which we face is the furniture and fittings racket which is operated against tenants who apply for this sort of accommodation and who also have to pay these premiums? Am I not right in saying that it is no good the Government saying that it is illegal, when nothing is said to the tenant? In view of his legal knowledge, will my hon. Friend deal with that?

Mr. Howell: I cannot claim any legal knowledge, but I find the intricacies of this Act more difficult to follow than the laws governing football. However, there is one matter on which I am able to give a judgment without any dubiety—that the Government are completely offside in this matter. I am sorry, Sir Gordon, that I am not in your place and able to referee this little match. Had I been, I would have taken some names on the other side of the Committee. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) to be wrong, but I may be wrong, for I am not a lawyer.
Section 4 of the Act deals with rents in excess of the registered rents and makes premiums illegal. I should have thought that it covered the matter, for it says:
Where the rent payable for any premises is entered in the register under the provisions of this Act, it shall not be lawful to require or receive … as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance of a contract to which this Act applies relating to such premises, payment of any fine, premium or other like sum, or any consideration, in addition to the rent.
I should have thought that the word "premium" covered all the abuses to which we have been referring.

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). After that passage which my hon. Friend has just read, Section 4 has a further subsection. It is made an offence for the landlord to receive, or require, or charge a rent which is in excess of that recorded in the register mentioned in Section 3.
However, I cannot see anything in Section 4 which makes it an offence for the landlord to reduce the amount of furniture, to take away a couple of chairs, or take down the curtains, or take up the "lino." That leads me to the conclusion that it is not an offence for a landlord to do those things, which confirms my view that Section 3 does not require the local authority to keep a note of the facilities which are available in the flat. My hon. Friend has raised a complicated issue, but the discussion has been useful. Can the Minister save some time by giving us his views on the matter?

Mr. Howell: Again, I do not agree. Section 12 (2) says:
Where separate sums are payable by the lessee of any premises to the lessor for any two or more of the following, namely:—

(a) occupation of the premises;
(b) use of furniture; and
(c) services;
the expression 'rent' shall, in relation to those premises ….

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. You will be aware, Sir Gordon, that for the last half an hour we have been discussing some highly technical legal matters. Not one Law Officer has been present. My hon. Friends have been asking for information about the law. Would it not be in order to ask for a Law Officer of the Crown to be present?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that. We all want to get home. If my hon. Friends have any doubts about the law, should not the Committee have the advice of the Law Officers?

The Chairman: That is not a point of Order for me.

Mr. Lewis: Can you tell me, Sir Gordon, in what way I can get a proper legal opinion so that we may clear up this difficulty? My hon. Friends seem to be at variance and we have four opinions which seem to be contrary. We do not have one Law Officer present to help and advise us. I have constituents who are interested in the matter. How can I decide on the continuance or rejection of this Act if the legal points are not clear?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order. I have been differing from my hon. Friend on this matter and I think that he is misleading the Committee, although not deliberately, in his interpretation of the Section. Can we not obtain from the occupants of the Treasury Bench some information about the exact position?

The Chairman: As I have said, that is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. What is the function of the Chair? Supposing as a matter of argument—anything could happen with this Government—it was decided that the junior Minister could not reply, because he was not capable of replying, that the Minister himself was not available and that therefore there would be no reply to the debate: what is the function of the Chair in making this a genuine debating Chamber where democracy lives? No senior Minister has been here throughout the debate. No Law Officer has been here. Each time we have raised the matter you have said that it is not a matter for the Chair.

The Chairman: That is a purely hypothetical question. It is not for the Chair to decide which Minster replies to a debate.

Mr. M. Stewart: As my hon. Friends have said, we have important legal points affecting the interpretation of the Act and we are attempting to deal with them in the absence of the Law Officers. I therefore wish to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." The hour is late. This is a complicated issue. The discussion has aroused a great deal more interest than the Government or their supporters ever expected. The Committee could better continue its deliberations after we have had time for reflection. When we reassemble to deal with the matter we shall, I hope, have the advice of the Law Officers for which my hon. Friends have asked.

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot move such a Motion in the middle of a speech.

Mr. Stewart: On a point of order. I thought that it was possible to move such a Motion in the middle of a speech, otherwise a resolute Member who could speak for long enough could prevent almost indefinitely a Motion to report Progress from being moved.

The Chairman: It is a question for the Chair whether to accept that Motion.

Mr. Rippon: Further to that point of order. When he rose about five hours ago the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said he would like me to wait and to listen to hon. Members interested in the subject before I replied. I have done that, I hope, with as much patience as I can muster. I have listened very carefully to hon. Members. If they feel that it would be helpful to have some answers to the points which they have made, I shall be only to happy to try to supply them.

Mr. Lewis: There are three or four hon. Members wanting the help of the Law Officers. That was the point which I made.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order and there is no point in repeating it.

Mr. A. Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

The Chairman: That Motion has not been moved. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. D. Howell) has the Floor.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. When my hon. Friend has finished his speech—which I suppose will not be too long—will it then be in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) to move a Motion to report progress?

The Chairman: It will be in order for the hon. Member to do so. Whether I accept it is another matter.

Mr. Howell: I realise that the Minister's intervention was designed to be helpful, but I found it impertinent—and I say that in a friendly way—because he wanted to reply without hearing what


I have to say. After all, not only had I not been speaking for many moments, but several of my hon. Friends still wish to take part in the debate and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has been waiting for a considerable time to participate in our discussion.
As to the Law Officers of the Crown being called, I do not want to see confusion made worse by the presence of the Attorney-General. I was making the point that under Section 4, which deals with excess rents and illegal premiums, a great number of questions remain to be asked. For instance, how many prosecutions have taken place? The subject of rackets has already been mentioned. There is the furniture and the key-money racket. Everyone knows that throughout the country these rackets are going on.
If I am right about Section 4 on this matter of premiums we are entitled to some information. This is not mentioned in the definition, although there may he case law on the subject. It would be a considerable argument in favour of the line advocated by the Opposition Front Bench that we should not agree to the continuance of these powers if we found that they were not being used. I suspect strongly, from my local knowledge of Birmingham, that Section 4, which clearly states that premiums for unfurnished accommodation are illegal, is not being enforced anywhere—certainly not in Birmingham.
We are, therefore, entitled to know what steps the Ministry takes to see that it is enforced. Do any local authorities ever discuss it? I do not suppose that even the L.C.C.—and here I join mildly in some of the criticism that has been made of that council, for certainly it is true of my borough council—discuss the matter and try to publicise, as they should, the illegal nature of premiums of this type. It is the function of local authorities to bring this before the public.

Mr. Reynolds: I am a great admirer of the L.C.C. in many respects and I appreciate that that body is criticised in many respects as well. But if my hon. Friend will turn to Section 6 of this Act he will find that the responsible local authority for the area of the ad-

ministrative county of London is, in fact, the council of the Metropolitan borough. The L.C.C. is blamed for many things but, in this respect, I think my hon. Friend is being a little unfair to it.

Mr. Howell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. If what he says is correct I not only withdraw my remarks but come to a further point, since the hon. Gentleman the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) has joined us once again. If what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North says is correct, and I believe it is, the television broadcast in which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South took part was not only nauseating, but incorrect—that he should be blaming the L.C.C. when, clearly, his own borough council, a Conservative council, was at fault.
This is an extremely serious matter. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South having gone on television, and having misled the entire nation and been handsomely paid for it, has sat here and not attempted to speak, although, to be fair to him, I thought that at one time he wanted to speak. He had an earnest conversation with the Government Whip and it seemed to me that he wanted to defend the position. It would be interesting, even at this hour of the morning, if he would in fact now try to tell us what steps he intends to take now that it has been ascertained that it is not the responsibility of the L.C.C. but of the Holborn Borough Council and other borough councils. He should correct this gross inaccuracy which he propounded in his television programme last week.
It is a serious matter if hon. Members can put out views for political advantage, they are proved to be wrong, and there is no redress—

Mr. A. Evans: I understand that my hon. Friend is asking the hon. Gentleman to correct a mistake which he made on television. I also understand my hon. Friend to say that the Government Whip has told the hon. Gentleman that he may not speak. Is that so? If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) has been forbidden to speak in order to rectify a mistake, ought we not to know


about it? I can hardly believe that he has been intimidated and not allowed to speak in this debate.

Mr. Howell: The point which I was making was that the hon. Gentleman was apparently waiting to take part in the debate. I was being charitable to him. He did have a conversation with the Government Whip, but then seemed to take no more interest in the proceedings. However, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South clearly misled the entire nation and he has a moral duty to put that right.

Mr. John Hobson: Mr. John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington) rose—

Mr. Howell: I shall give way in a moment. As the hon. and learned Gentleman represents a Midlands constituency I shall not keep him waiting, and, as he is a Queen's Counsel, that is an added reason for giving way. My point is simply that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South should correct statements and should carry out his Parliamentary duties. It is surely more important that he should take care of the families in his borough through his work here than that he should appear on television. I must say that I find other television "stars" in this Committee and in the House are in somewhat the same position.

Mr. Hobson: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He has said that my hon. Friend has made a misleading statement but he does not say what it is. Does he say that my hon. Friend was discussing on television the registration of houses—or rather, of furnished lettings—and which it is now established is the responsibility of the Metropolitan borough councils?

Mr. Howell: As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South has not taken issue with us, I do not know. I would say that it is doubtful whether the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) should offer free legal advice without being consulted. This would appear to me to be some breach of legal etiquette, but the fact is that he gave that advice. At any rate, I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman has given that

advice but I hope that he will consult his colleague—

Mr. Diamond: Surely my hon. Friend will not allow that intervention to go by without answering it completely, as he knows he can, by reference to the Act. The definition of a local authority, appearing in Section 6 (1, b), applies to all Sections of the Act and not just to Section 3, which provides for a register of rents. Is not my hon. Friend, therefore, right in accusing the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) of misleading the nation and, for all I know, if the television broadcast was projected further, of misleading the whole world on this point?

Mr. Howell: There is a considerable amount of substance in what my hon. Friend says, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention was to the effect that his hon. Friend was not, on television, dealing with this Act—

Mr. Hobson: We have not heard the hon. Member's accusation.

Mr. Howell: In that case the hon. and learned Gentleman must read HANSARD tomorrow, because I have already repeated my accusation two or three times and I do not want to weary the Committee with needless repetition—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—and people making funny noises, Sir Gordon, should be careful, because I know that you are diligently watching the interests of the Committee to see that we do not overstep the mark. It is for that reason that I am anxious to have the Act in front of me. It is relevant that in his television programme the hon. Member may not have been dealing with this Act, but he should have been dealing with it. It is a very serious matter to discuss London's housing and lack of housing and not to deal with the situation created by the Government. Therefore, on balance, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention was very helpful to his hon. Friend.
Section 5 deals with notice to quit after reference to the tribunal—

Mr. Fletcher: I did not see the television broadcast, but in view of the recent interchange of opinion, would it not be interesting, first, to know exactly


what the Holborn Borough Council has done with its powers under Section 3 and the earlier Sections? As I understand it, the Holborn Borough Council has certain statutory duties and certain rights. One of the matters—with which, even if the hon. Member does not deal the Minister no doubt will—is what that council—to take just that as an example, though the same argument applies to the other borough councils—has done to implement the provisions of Section 2.
With regard to the register that local authorities have to keep, what seems to have emerged is that, owing to the uncertain interpretation of what should be put in the register, it is very doubtful whether some of these registers kept by some local authorities are really of any use at all, particularly if applications made to the tribunals were made some years ago and have not been brought up to date. It will be very difficult to formulate a view about the desirability of the continuance of the Act until we have been informed of the kind of register kept by Holborn Borough Council and the other borough councils, so I hope that my hon. Friend will elaborate that matter before he comes to Section 5.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Howell: I quite agree. That is a matter that I was going to deal with after the Minister had replied. I am asking a series of questions in the hope of getting some information, and if the information that we get is inadequate, or non-existent, then one would have to return to the matter.
In order to satisfy my hon. Friend, I will ask the question direct about Holborn and St. Pancras Borough Council, because the answer would throw a considerable light on the activities of the hon. Member who represents that constituency. If the Minister could give us any information on how that borough council has administered this Act it would be most helpful. May I ask him, if he is going to supply the information, to tell us how the Holborn and St. Pancras Borough Council administered the Act before the change in its political complexion? I have a strong suspicion that the council has not been half as diligent in administering the Act in the last few years as it was under the pre-

vious administration. It is relevant to know how the change in the political complexion of the council has changed the administration of an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Marsh: If my hon. Friend is asking this specific question, which is perfectly fair and relevant, about the register of the Holborn and St. Pancras Borough Council before and after the change in its political complexion, can we first get settled—because this is an important issue—whether, with respect to Section 3 (2, b) of the Act, this specification relates to contents and furniture or merely to the premises? Surely it is pointless to ask to what extent information is provided by the register if we are still in dispute as to the information which that register contains. My hon. Friend gave as his opinion that Section 3 (2, b) related purely to the premises per se and did not include the contents and furniture. I should have thought that, as we are dealing with an Act relating specifically to furnished accommodation, it is essential to know what is in that register before there is any point in knowing who keeps the register and how many people are on it.

Mr. Fletcher: Could I help my hon. Friend? This is a most material aspect of the matter, and I hope it can be cleared up either when the Minister replies or subsequently. As I understand, Section 3 requires the local authorities to keep a register, and the register has to contain first of all—and I think this is the first answer to my hon. Friend—the prescribed particulars relating to contents, and secondly a specification of the premises. I had always understood that subsection 2 (b) referred merely to a description of the premises and that particulars with regard to the furniture had to be included under paragraph (a).
Of course, it may be that in a great many contracts between landlord and tenant there is nothing in writing and, therefore, it would be difficult to get precise evidence from the parties as to what the verbal agreement was. But the register, as I understand it, comes into operation only after the tribunal has made a decision. When the tribunal makes its decision, the decision is in writing, and provide that the rent which


has been fixed shall be in respect of certain articles of furniture. That is what I should have thought the Act requires. But what is much more doubtful is whether or not these registers kept by local authorities have, in fact, contained in them the particulars relating to furniture. Therefore, it seems to me that what my hon. Friends and, I imagine, the whole Committee are interested to know is not only what is the precise legal interpretation of Section 3—

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. My hon. Friend is making a point, but surely he is not at liberty to go on and make a speech. He was invited to make an interjection, and, although we appreciate his legal advice, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has the Floor.

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will conclude his intervention and allow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath to continue his speech.

Mr. Fletcher: I was about to conclude my short intervention, Sir Gordon. I was saying that I should expect my hon. Friend not only to want to know what is the precise interpretation of the Section but also to ask the Minister to produce here and now in the Committee some of these registers from the local authorities so that we may look at them and see what they in fact contain.

Mr. A. Evans: Will my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt for a moment? He probably knows from his experience that a tribunal, when it has a case before it, will in most cases visit the actual premises and take a note of the amount of furniture in them. Whether or not the contents of that note are passed on to the local authority is doubtful, though I imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us.

Mr. Howell: If I may now continue my speech, I wish to draw attention to Section 5. Although I agree that Section 4 is relevant, I had passed to a consideration of Section 5, which is, I suggest, the important one in this connection. I noticed that the Minister sent

his Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Official Box, and I saw the occupant of that box go away. I can only assume that we are to have some helpful information in the course of the Minister's reply.
Section 5 is the Section which provides that the tribunal may determine that three months' protection shall be given to a tenant who has applied. This is, I suggest, the nub of the matter. We all know—and it is extremely serious—that anyone going to a tribunal to complain has only three months' protection thereafter. There are many unscrupulous people in property today.

Mr. A. Lewis: All Tories.

Mr. Howell: There may be Liberals, too, and I must say that we have not had a single Liberal Member present in the Committee today. Not long ago, I spent several days in a by-election campaign, and I noted the ardour with which the Liberal Party advanced its case.

The Chairman: That is going far beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Howell: I think you may be right, Sir Gordon, and the Liberals went rather far in that election. I shall not refer to it again, except to say that not one Liberal Member has been present during the debate.
Will the Minister tell us whether the three months' protection, with the option of a renewal for a further three months, is proving satisfactory for the protection of tenants? I have a friend who sits on a rent tribunal, and she tells me that she is extremely worried about the lack of protection for tenants. The clerks who faithfully serve the tribunals are extremely worried, too. People come to see them about excessive rents. They investigate and find that there is undoubtedly a prima facie case to go before the tribunal, but they have the greatest difficulty in getting people to bring the cases because, immediately after an order is made, that is the end for the tenants. As soon as the three months and, perhaps, the optional further three months, are up, the tenant has lost his protection.
This might have been all right in 1946 when the Act was passed, one year after the war. There were then a Labour


Government and a majority of Labour councillors in the large local authorities, and it was expected, and it was all right to expect, that they would keep the position under review. In any case, in 1946 when the Act was passed it was thought that the housing problem would be solved in a relatively short space of time, and the Act was a temporary Measure to deal with exceptional hardship. It was expected that within a few years the situation would cure itself.
I have not read the debates which took place on the Bill, but I hazard a guess that no one on either side of the Chamber in 1946 would have said that sixteen years later we should still be far from solving a problem which the Bill was introduced to solve. The position has instead worsened, after ten years of Conservatism. In 1951 the Conservatives said that they would solve the problem by the magical figure of 300,000 houses a year. Although they accomplished that rate for some years, it has been on the decline recently, and all the evidence is that it will decline even further. In these circumstances, we are entitled to know the relevance the Government attach to the question of three months' protection.
I was astounded at the figure which one of my hon. Friends gave us, that one-half of the families in his constituency lived in shared accommodation. If that is so it raises in dramatic form indeed the question of three months' protection. The Minister shakes his head, but I think it does. I think that because of the Rent Act there is extra furnished accommodation. Houses have become vacant, houses which used to be occupied by only one family each, as I know is the case in my constituency—and I want to touch on that later on. The amount of furnished accommodation has risen dramatically, and because it has risen dramatically we ask ourselves the question, why have not the numbers of applicants to the rent tribunals risen in the same proportion? They have not risen in the same proportion because the Act says they are entitled to be protected for three months only. The Minister can disagree. I do not know whether he would like to deal with this specifically now, while I am on this point?

Mr. Rippon: If the hon. Member will look at Section 11 of the 1949 Act he will see that there is power to extend security tenure for three months any number of times.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. Is it not the case that we are discussing whether or not the 1946 Act should be extended, not the 1949 Act, and that we were advised that we were to discuss only whether the 1946 Act should or should not be abolished? That is the Amendment we are discussing.

The Chairman: The Parliamentary Secretary referred to an Act which amended the 1946 Act.

Mr. Howell: I have not got the amending Act in front of me, but I take it from the Minister, but I am a little doubtful about it. I can only say, if the Minister is right, that it is a remarkable fact that it is generally understood throughout the country that tenants are protected for a maximum of six months.

Mr. Pavitt: This is an extremely important matter. In practice the Section works in this way. Once an application to the tribunal has been made there is a period of three months with a possible extension following that. In fact, knowing that he is about to be turned out anyway, what frequently happens is that he finds alternative accommodation himself and does not proceed with the application. The result is that the landlord is able to maintain the higher rent, in that any tenant who follows the first one feels unable to go to the tribunal because he is aware of this threat of eviction hanging over his head. We, therefore, have stabilisation of an unfair rent because of the very existence of the right to go to a tribunal.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Howell: It may be so, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to substantiate the point about the effect this is having in the country. If a tenant can go any number of times to the tribunal to ask for any number of extensions, it means that he can secure permanent protection. We know that tenants do not obtain permanent protection, either because they do not know that they can continually go to the tribunal for these extensions, in which case there is not enough propaganda on the


matter, or because the tribunals themselves show a marked reluctance to give extensions after six months. I suspect that the second point is the relevant one. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will find that most tribunals, when it comes to the point, will not give protection beyond six months.

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellish rose—

Mr. Howell: I will give way in a moment, but I think that I am now on the point of getting the Parliamentary Secretary to rise to clear up this question whether the rent tribunals are showing this marked reluctance. He appeared to be shaking his head about it.

Mr. Rippon: I was indicating to the Committee what the power was. I think it is fair to say that the rent tribunals are reluctant to exercise it, except in what they regard as an appropriate case.

Mr. Howell: In that case I am quite right in the supposition I am making. What is the Minister doing about it? If the tribunals are reluctant to exercise these powers, why are they so reluctant? What the Parliamentary Secretary has told us is a very serious matter. He has told us that rent tribunals are reluctant to operate the amending powers which the House of Commons gave them in 1949.

Mr. Mellish: We know that in London of sample cases taken of those who were homeless, the majority had been evicted from furnished accommodation. If that is so, and if what the Parliamentary Secretary has said is true, how were they evicted when the law gives them protection? It is odd that the Parliamentary Secretary should first create one impression and then get up and create quite another.

Mr. Howell: This is perhaps the most important fact that has been elicited in the debate. I take it that the Minister is right in saying that these people can go repeatedly for help, but obviously they are not getting that help. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey is quite right and his comment is extremely germane to this problem.

Mr. A. Lewis: The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that the tribunals are extremely reluctant to give this protection.

Mr. Howell: Yes, the tribunals are reluctant. That is the point that we have now adduced from the Parliamentary Secretary. We have now reached a situation where we are being asked to renew an Act of Parliament which the Parliamentary Secretary tells us the tribunals are refusing to operate.

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: The Parliamentary Secretary cannot have it both ways. He first said that a tenant can go to a tribunal at any time to obtain protection for a further three months, and then said that the tribunals were showing remarkable reluctance to operate this provision. That means that the will of the House of Commons is being deliberately flouted by rent tribunals. That is the logic of the Parliamentary Secretary's case.

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to be unfair to the rent tribunals, which do their job very carefully and diligently. What I said was that these were the powers which Parliament has given them, but these regular extensions are not given in many cases, except where the tribunals feel that it is appropriate to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: Why?] That is a matter for the discretion of a tribunal in the circumstances of a case. That is under Section 11 of the 1949 Act.

Mr. Howell: I do not want to do an injustice to rent tribunals. I have a healthy respect for the work they have done in difficult circumstances. But we have now found from the Parliamentary Secretary that, for one reason or another, and perhaps for a good reason, rent tribunals are flouting the expressed will of the House of Commons.
I have no doubt that the Labour Government had an entirely different intention when they brought in the 1949 Act. Why did Parliament then decide that extra protection might be given if the Parliamentary Secretary now tells us that it is to be invoked only in the most special cases? I do not believe that the Labour Government intended that this power should be used in the parsimonious way the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested. It is an extremely serious situation.

Mr. Fletcher: It seems to me that the last two interventions by the Parliamentary Secretary have raised an important point which I do not think was clear to some of my hon. Friends. For the first time in this debate references have been made to the 1949 Act. Hitherto the debate has proceeded on the assumption that the Act which we were asked to extend was the 1946 Act.
Sir William, you and your predecessors in the Chair have rightly pointed out to us, over and over again, that we must confine our observations to the 1946 Act because that is the Act referred to in the Bill. Yet at this very late stage in two interventions the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the 1949 Act, and, not unnaturally, that took several of my hon. Friends somewhat by surprise. Before we proceed any further, we ought to clear up this point and know to what extent we are being asked to deal not only with the 1946 Act but with the 1949 Act.
I have a shrewd suspicion that we shall be told to look at Part II of the Schedule, where we shall find references not only to the 1946 Act but to an Act of:
15 &amp; 16 Geo. 6 &amp; 1 Eliz. 2.
to an Act of:
2 &amp; 3 Eliz. 2.
and an Act of
5 &amp; 6 Eliz. 2.
It is a very interesting academic point, with a great deal of history, but I am sure that you, Sir William, would not think this an appropriate moment in which to explain that what the Parliamentary Secretary calls an Act of 1949 is technically an Act of
12, 13 and 14 Geo. 6.
I think that we mean the same thing, but this is one of those interesting examples of the kind of confusion we sometimes get into because of the niceties of Parliamentary draftsmanship. But that is by the way.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of Order, Sir William. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) was intervening, but he seems to be making a speech. Who has the Floor.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understood that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) had the Floor and was interrupted for an interjection, but that interjection appears to be going on for a long time.

Mr. Fletcher: I will bring it to a conclusion, Sir William. I have made my point. I was hoping that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to know whether we are confined to the 1946 Act or whether we can also discuss these three or four other Acts.

Mr. Howell: What worries me is the sudden emergence of Members opposite whom we have not hitherto seen during the debate. I hope that this does not mean that the Whips are busy at the telephone rousing Members from their beds to force us down. That would be a serious matter and would constitute despicable tactics.

Mr. A. Lewis: They are a despicable party.

Mr. Howell: In case I am unable to register a protest later, I register it now.

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) raised the valid point that we had now discovered that the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, was also related, to some extent, to what we are discussing. I am in a quandary and would like the point settled. To what extent are we now involved in the amending Acts in addition to the 1946 Act? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has been making a number of points—and perhaps you, Sir William, may be able to assist—arising out of the 1946 Act.
We have now been informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that this also involves a number of other Acts. There is reference to the Crown Lessees (Protection of Sub-Tenants) Act, 1952, as well. Section 11 (5) of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, states:
This section shall be construed as one with the Act of 1946, and reference in this section to that Act shall be construed as references to that Act as extended by section seven of this Act.
I am in a quandary about the extent to which we are able to discuss the 1949 and 1952 Acts as well as the 1946 Act. If


at this stage we are able to pursue that sort of argument, it seems very late in the evening and I am left in the difficulty of wondering what happens if these laws are not continued and whether, if the Bill is not passed, all or some of them will fall.

1.45 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: The position is that, in so far as the 1949 or other Acts amend the 1946 Act, they are part of the 1946 Act whose continuance or discontinuance we are discussing.

Mr. Howell: With respect, I thought that that would be the position, Sir William. It puts us in this difficulty: when I tried to get copies of the relevant Acts, I could get copies only of the 1946 Act. The amending Acts were not available in the Vote Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has yet to speak, and in four hours he has not succeeded in getting a copy.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. Is not that a point for you, in the Chair, Sir William? I, too, have been to the Vote Office and tried to get copies of the Acts, but I could not get one. Is it not the duty of the Chair to see that hon. Members are supplied with, or have readily available in the Vote Office, the various papers which they need for their Parliamentary business? I am told that there are no copies in the Vote Office. Is it possible for you to do something to see that we get the papers which are necessary for us to carry out our duties?

The Deputy-Chairman: There are copies of the Statutes, both in the Library and the Division Lobbies, of which hon. Members can avail themselves—more than one copy.

Mr. Fletcher: Further to that point of order. Is not this a matter for the Leader of the House? Am I not right in recollecting that on a number of previous occasions hon. Members have had to protest that they have been unable—I did not realise that the Leader of the House would come into the Chamber at what I might call the psychological moment. It was a well-timed arrival and I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful. May I now address my remarks to the Leader of the House?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) must bear in mind that he is now speaking on a point of order. I will do my best to reply.

Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order. Some of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to the fact that they have been to the Vote Office in order to try to obtain copies of the relevant Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill. At a relatively late hour in our discussions, it has emerged that we are being asked to extend for a further year not only the Act of 1946, but four amending Acts. This matter was brought to our attention for the first time by the Minister himself, and a number of my hon. Friends, not unnaturally, then went to the Vote Office to try to get copies of the Acts which the Minister had mentioned.
On previous occasions when this difficulty has arisen the Leader of the House has always given an undertaking that an adequate number of copies of the relevant Acts would be available in the Vote Office for the convenience of hon. Members. It is not enough to say that there is a copy in the Library, because the copies there are bound. For the convenience of hon. Members, it has hitherto been arranged for printers' copies, unbound, to be available to facilitate discussion.
My point of order is whether it is reasonable in those circumstances to ask hon. Members to continue with consideration of this Amendment until sufficient copies are available for the benefit of hon. Members.

Mr. Diamond: Further to that point of order. As you have already ruled, Sir William, that the 1946 Act is to be deemed the Act as amended by subsequent Acts, and as you have said that it is possible to get bound copies of it from the Library, may I draw your attention to the fact that I am informed that there is only one annotated copy of the Act, which is in my possession, and that therefore no other hon. Member is able to see the Act which we are discussing? They will be misled in everything by thinking that the Act is that which some of them have in their possession, when that is far from being the case.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee will recollect that I did not refer to bound copies of the Act but to copies of the Statutes.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. We are pleased to see that 30 or 40 hon. Members opposite are present. Are there sufficient copies for them all and for my hon. Friends? I was told that there was a limited supply.

Mr. Howell: I can understand your not wishing to reply to that point of order, Sir William, for it should be obvious to my hon. Friend that hon. Members opposite wish to take no interest in our proceedings and do not want copies of the Act. In the course of the debate my hon. Friends can share the copy which we have.
I want to return to Section 6. If the local authority so resolves, the powers under this Act may be exercised
by one of their officers".
Section 6 (3) states that a
local authority shall have power to publish information regarding the provisions of this Act.
Will the Minister tell us how many local authorities operate this Section, particularly Section 6 (3)? How many local authorities publish information about the Act? How many local authorities published the information in 1946 and have done nothing about it since? How many local authorities published information about the Act when it was amended in 1949? That is the Amendment which most of us have not in our possession. What does the Minister think about publicity?
Since the Rent Act was passed in 1957 the amount of furnished accommodation has risen astronomically. There is a very strong case for a wholesale propaganda campaign and publicity campaign throughout the country to make the position known to new tenants. Some of those now occupying rented accommodation were only 6 years of age when the Act was put on the Statute Book in 1946, and in those youthful years they could not be expected to follow the publicity which no doubt was put out in 1946. They have grown older and married and the publicity has been forgotten. There is clearly a very strong case for the Government to take urgent

steps to see that if the Act is given a further lease of life, local authorities fulfil their obligations about publicity. We are not asking for too much; merely that the Minister, in justifying his demand for a further lease of life for this Act, should give us information on how it is working.
I will leave that Section for the moment, because I want to come to Section 9, which deals with offences under the Act, Section 9 (1) states:
A person who requires or receives any payment or any consideration in contravention of section four of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment, and, without prejudice to any other method of recovery …
This raises the general question of penalties to which, surely, the Committee is entitled to give consideration. As abuses by landlords of furnished accommodation are generally accepted to be on the increase, we are entitled to know whether a fine of £100 and the term of imprisonment stated are in line with this day and age, for those penalties were fixed in 1946, a considerable time ago.
I will not go into an economic dissertation on the fall in the value of the £ under this Government, although it is quite fair to consider whether £100 in 1946 should still be the penalty in use today. One does not want to trespass unduly on these occasions. Suffice to say that all hon. Members know that many of our better newspapers have been vigilant in drawing attention to some of the sharks in the landlord field and have long lamented that when, on the odd occasions, some of these fellows are caught, the amount of the fine and imprisonment seem to be negligible.
Remembering that these penalties were determined in 1946, can the Minister say how many prosecutions have taken place in these years? Will he relate the figures to the amount of furnished accommodation available, particularly since it has been on the increase, and can he say what is the feeling of the rent tribunals about the powers and penalties available to the courts?

Mr. Mellish: I think that my hon. Friend is asking for the impossible, even from this Minister. The question of


penalties does not arise, because people are no longer complaining about these landlords. They cannot complain, because if they do they lose their tenancies. My hon. Friend is missing the main burden of the argument—that this Act was introduced in 1946 and is no longer of value. That is why we do not want it. Its purpose has become abortive. My hon. Friend can be given all the figures he likes, but until we get an amended outlook on the whole question of housing—and, if possible, a new Government as well—we will get nowhere. My hon. Friend rightly talks about shark speculators and asks for the figures, but I can assure him that, even if the Minister can supply the details, I shall not be interested in them.

Mr. Howell: That is an interesting intervention by my hon. Friend. It appears that he has made up his mind. He does not want this Act under any circumstances. But, as I have said, I do not quite share my hon. Friend's view. My point is that this Act should be done away with or, at any rate, we should be told how it is working. There is an obligation upon the Government to give us this information before we reach a final conclusion.—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not relevant."]—Until we have heard the information, we cannot decide the question of relevance.
2.0 a.m.
For my part, if I was convinced by the Government that the Act was protecting the interests of tenants, and that the penalties were sufficiently severe, then I would be well disposed to the continuance of the Act. But if that is not the case, then I must agree with my hon. Friends that the sooner we get rid of the Act the better. That is all I have to say on offences.

Mr. Diamond: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I suggest that he is probably looking at the Act as he has it in his book of Statutes, but I am looking at it in its annotated form. The Section dealing with offences has been amended. Whereas in 1946 it was an offence for a person to require or receive any payment or a consideration, it is now an offence only to require or receive a payment.
A landlord or lessee could get round this by asking, not for any cash, but for

something just as valuable. So, any question raised on this should really be in two parts: what was the position in 1946, and what has happened since the Act was amended in 1949? Very likely the information which my hon. Friend would be given would be utterly meaningless because the transaction could be carried on by means of a "consideration."

Mr. Howell: I know that my hon. Friend wants to speak, and I should like him to elaborate that point. What is worrying me is that I suspected a little time ago that the Government might be attempting to put the Closure. Looking round the Chamber, it seems that hon. Members are being brought in for that express purpose. I hope that we can have an assurance from the Patronage Secretary that the Government are not going to stifle debate on this extremely important subject.
Hon. Members have obviously been aroused and brought in, and it is a most serious matter if attempts are to be made to interfere with our discussion on this involved and important topic.
I was about to say that Section 10 deals with the question of legal proceedings. It lays down that these must be instituted by a local authority. Only a local authority can do it. If a local authority institutes proceedings, then the Committee is entitled to some very detailed information. For example, has there been any reluctance on the part of local authorities to institute proceedings? Is there any reluctance on their part to having matters referred to the sort of officers who are vigorous in the carrying out of responsibilities imposed by Statutes of the House of Commons?
The Birmingham local authority delegated this Section to the health committee. We have some first-class officers in that department and they are very zealous in their work, but even in Birmingham—and I suspect that this will be true of other local authorities—the number of cases coming before the rent tribunals in no way matches up to the requirements of the situation. How does the Minister feel about the way in which local authorities are exercising their powers?
I want now to turn—

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend has spoken for well over an hour, during which time he castigated county boroughs until he found out that what he meant were the local authorities. He has been asking the Minister how much the local authorities have done, as if the Minister would know—he does not even know what his own Ministry has done. Does my hon. Friend expect the Bermondsey authority to find the time or the staff to deal with the requirements of this Act, enacted in 1946, when it is already at full stretch trying to find houses, let flats, and so on? The local authorities just have not the staff to do it, and they have not the time, either.

Mr. Howell: If that is so, it is another serious matter which has been exposed by what I hope is a searching cross-examination. If local authorities have not the staff necessary to protect their tenants, the Act is worthless. I would at once concede to my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) that if local authorities cannot enforce the Act it is a considerable argument for not granting the Government what they are seeking. If the Act were enforced with the enthusiasm envisaged when it was passed there might be a case, and one of my main objectives has been to find out the facts. I do not want to judge the Government prematurely, but I suspect that when we get the evidence we will be led to my hon. Friend's conclusion.
I turn, now, to the Schedule—and I hope that hon. Members opposite are not getting impatient—

Mr. A. Lewis: It does not matter if they are.

Mr. Howell: At the moment, I am dealing only with the bones by referring to the Act; we can yet put the flesh on the bones. The Schedule deals with the setting up of tribunals. I think that all the Minister has so far told us is that the tribunals are very fair. We all accept that. They do their job very diligently, fairly and honestly. At the same time, the impression is gaining ground that their members are drawn from a very cloistered section. The chairman is usually found to be a semi-retired barrister or someone of that ilk, while the other members do not faith-

fully represent a cross-section of the community.
If that were so it would be extremely serious, because the members must be in touch with life at many points. They must understand what this is all about, and be able to bring to bear a wealth of experience and common sense on the problems of today. May we have an assurance from the Minister that these tribunals are, in fact, composed of such people, that the consumers—for example, the Co-operative movement and certainly the trade union movement—are being fairly represented on these tribunals? I am not sure by what method the Minister chooses the people to sit on these tribunals. If I may draw on my local government experience, for some five or six years I had the task of recommending members of a local authority and other people of similar standing to serve on all sorts of committees, and I cannot recall ever being asked in the Birmingham City Council to make a recommendation in respect of a rent tribunal. I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends who have had experience in the matter have discovered the secret of how people get on to these tribunals. It seems to be more secretive than the way in which people get on to benches of magistrates, and, in all conscience, that is an extremely elaborate and secretive procedure.

Mr. Reynolds: I agree that the appointment of magistrates is a very secretive affair, but my hon. Friend will agree that there are many more magisterial divisions in the country than there are rent tribunals. Would he not admit that in so far as a petty sessional division is concerned, the vast majority of the magistrates—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am not clear how the question of magistrates can be in order on this Amendment.

Mr. Reynolds: I am trying to make the point, with which I think my hon. Friend will agree, Sir William, that rent tribunals as at present constituted cover such wide areas administered by so many local authorities that it is hardly surprising that my hon. Friend cannot remember having been asked, as a member of a local authority, to assist in the


nomination of such persons. Would he not agree that with the comparatively small number of tribunals which we have got, each one covering a vast area of the country, it must be very difficult for the members of rent tribunals to have that detailed and intimate knowledge of a particular area which is necessary before they are in a position to sit in judgment and decide on the exact sort of rent which ought to be charged for a particular room in a particular house in a particular street which is probably twenty miles away from where they live, and a street in which they have never had the opportunity of walking because the area is so big?

Mr. Howell: That is an extremely relevant interruption. I agree that the method by which persons become magistrates is deserving of considerable sociological study, and the attitude of mind of people who serve on rent tribunals is, of course, extremely relevant to the decisions that they take. They have got to apply their minds to the individual circumstances of each case. We are entitled to know how people come to serve on rent tribunals. Even after the helpful intervention that we have had from my hon. Friend, I do not think anyone knows who makes the nominations.

Mr. A. Evans: My hon. Friend may know that the Franks Committee stated in its Report that the Committee was not satisfied that the fees paid to members of these tribunals were adequate to attract enough people of the right quality. In that connection, my hon. Friend will notice that in the Schedule to the Act it is laid down that the Minister has power to appoint the chairman and power to arrange for the salaries that these people shall have. I hope that he will bear in mind that the quality of the personnel will to some extent depend upon the salaries paid and that this matter has been commented upon by the Franks Committee in expressing its doubt about the adequacy of the fees paid. In his consideration of the Schedule, will my hon. Friend keep that factor in mind?

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Howell: I am receiving so much advice that it is difficult to know what course to take. I agree that the Report

of the Franks Committee is relevant. I was coming to the point in the Schedule to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. It provides that the Minister shall make such orders as to payments for the chairmen and members of the tribunals as he thinks fit. We are, therefore, entitled to know what the chairmen and members of tribunals draw today. When was the current rate of payment fixed, and what were the circumstances taken into account in fixing it?

Mr. Diamond: And expenses?

Mr. Howell: And what are the expenses paid.

Mr. A. Lewis: Has the pay pause had any effect?

Mr. Howell: I hardly suppose that the Government's pay pause has affected that.

Mr. A. Evans: Why not?

Mr. Howell: There is no logical reason why not, I agree, but we hope that the Government have not in fact done that. This is a serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what are the principles governing the rates of pay laid down. How many members serve in a voluntary capacity, if any do? Is the rate of remuneration which the Minister has laid down having an effect upon the quality of people coming forward to sit on tribunals? All these are very important questions.

Mr. Mellish: Is not the amalgamation of many of the tribunals another way of saving money at the expense, in the long run, of the people who need their help?

Mr. Howell: I have completed my review of the Act. The Committee will be glad to know that I have not really started my speech. However, I do not want unnecessarily to detain the Committee because I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and for Islington, North have not yet spoken.

Mr. Reynolds: Before my hon. Friend leaves the Act, may I remind him that he made a point which brought forth an intervention from the Parliamentary Secretary, who referred him to Section 11 of the 1949 Act? He said that that,


apparently, would make it possible to give more or less perpetual security of tenure: in other words, an occupier of furnished premises who had been to the rent tribunal would be in roughly the same position as the occupier of a rent controlled dwelling. I notice that in the case of Regina v. St. Helen's and District Rent Tribunal ex parte Pickavance, in 1952, the Lord Chief Justice in the Divisional Court said that this most definitely was not the intention of Section 11. It was not intended to give the occupier of furnished property a similar sort of protection to that which the occupiers of ordinary rent controlled dwellings have.
It would appear from that judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the Divisional Court, which, to the best of my knowledge, was upheld by the Court of Appeal and by the House of Lords, that there are many ways still in which the owner of property can get round Section 11 of the 1949 Act. One method is to wait till one day after the three months' security given under the Act of

1946 has expired and then to give notice to quit, and then, as I understand the judgment. Section 11 of the Act of 1949 no longer applies and there is no further protection whatever that the rent tribunal can give to the tenant. I think my hon. Friend would agree with me that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his interjection in my hon. Friend's speech, gave the impression that once a tenant had been to the tribunal and got three months' security he could keep going back to the tribunal, but it would appear from this judgment, which the Parliamentary Secretary has probably heard about, because it has been discussed before here and elsewhere, that the Parliamentary Secretary was mistaken in this context.

Mr. Hughes-Young: Mr. Hughes-Young rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 116, Noes 9.

Division No. 5.]
AYES
[2.21 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Aitken, W. T.
Green, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Allason, James
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Atkins, Humphrey
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R, G.
Prior, J. M. L.


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pym, Francis


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Ramsden, James


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Bossom, Clive
Hendry, Forbes
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hiley, Joseph
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rippon, Geoffrey


Bryan, Paul
Hirst, Geoffrey
Roberts, sir Peter (Heeley)


Buck, Antony
Hobson, John
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bullard, Denys
Hocking, Philip N,
St. Clair, M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Shaw, M.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Shepherd, William


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson smith, Geoffrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Leburn, Gilmour
Stodart, J. A.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lindsay, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Corfield, F. V.
Longbottom, Charles
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, F. H. (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Doughty, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, Colin


du Cann, Edward
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
van straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Walder, David


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton
Whitelaw, William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)


Foster, John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Worsley, Marcus


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Nugent, Sir Richard



Gammans, Lady
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Graeme Finlay and


Goodhart, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Mr. Michael Noble.




NOES


Evans, Albert
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Eric
Marsh, Richard



Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mellish, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Arhbur Lewis and




Mr. John Diamond.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule, put accordingly and agreed to.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I attempted, Sir William, to move this Motion at an earlier stage, but it was drawn to my attention that I was trying to do it in the middle of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). I think I may be excused for that, for it was very difficult for hon. Members to tell at what point my hon. Friend had reached the end or even the middle of his speech.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not prepared to grant leave for the Motion to be moved.

Mr. Stewart: On a point of order, Sir William. May I draw your attention to the fact that to our great surprise, and when we had been given to understand by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would reply, we had the Closure moved? In those circumstances, surely it is right that there should be some opportunity for the Opposition to express their view about what has happened. I would urge that after the, in effect, gagging of the Committee on the Question just decided, it would not be justifiable or prudent to put me in a position when I could not even put before you the reasons why I believe it would be right for the Committee to report progress at this time.
I fully appreciate, Sir William, that you have the right to refuse the Motion, but I cannot think it would be right for you to make such a refusal before I had even had the opportunity to put before you the reasons why leave might be granted. I shall be obliged if you will allow me to proceed.
I wish to move the Motion to save the Committee from a repetition of the shocking trick which has just been played on us by the Patronage Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary. [Interruption.] I invite hon. Members who

are jeering to consider what they have done. There are some hon. Members opposite who are supposed to represent constituencies which has serious housing problems. For the last four hours, while these problems have been discussed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nine."] I am speaking with the permission of the Chair. I shall stay until I have said what I have to say. I know what hon. Members are trying to say—that only a small number of my hon. Friends have been here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is true, but no one of my hon. Friends who has been here has at any time tried to prevent any other hon. Member who wanted to discuss this subject from doing so.
What is discreditable here is that Members opposite who represent constituencies with serious housing problems will not even come into this Chamber while we discuss those problems for four hours. But, then, when they are told, "Come along and vote quickly and then you can get to bed," they come and fill the Lobbies. That will not look well in the constituencies of some of them. They are saying, "We are not sufficiently interested in the problems of London's homeless."

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember that he is now seeking permission to move to report Progress. I hope he will not make a wider speech than is quite necessary for his Motion.

Mr. Stewart: I will not, Sir William. I want to make two points only. First, if we report Progress, we shall save hon. Members from having to do again the discreditable thing they have done already—that is to say, they have neglected the serious housing problems we have been discussing but have trotted along to prevent continuation of the discussion. That is a discreditable thing to do. Secondly, it will save the Government from a repetition of the injury to their own credit and honour that they have done just now.
We were led to suppose by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that he would


reply to the important debate which was then continuing. He received no support during the debate from any of his hon. Friends. Now, with the assistance, presumably, of the Patronage Secretary and, I am sorry to say, of the Leader of the House, he has dodged away from the undertaking he had given to reply. Both of these things are discreditable things to do. The party opposite sometimes makes claim to be the guardian of certain traditions in our national life. One of the developments of the Conservative Party in recent years has been the successive triumph within its ranks—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's request, I acceded to that request in allowing him to give the reasons why he sought to report Progress. I have heard sufficient of the reasons to repeat my former intention that I am not prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress. The Question is—

Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order, Sir William. Before you reach a final decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has"]—may I, with great respect, in one or two sentences, amplify one aspect of what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was saying?

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The Motion has not been moved, because I did not grant the hon. Member for Fulham leave to move it.

Mr. A. Evans: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has just given you reasons why he thought you should grant him leave to move to report Progress, Sir William. While he was speaking, he was inaudible to me because of the clamour and shouting by hon. Members opposite who had not been here during the whole of our debate. No doubt you were able to hear what my hon. Friend was saying, but, because of the clamour and shouting of hon. Members opposite, I was not. In those circumstances, would you permit my hon. Friend again to state those reasons? I should have thought that at the time you would have called for order and rebuked the hon. Members who were making the clamour.

The Deputy-Chairman: Had I myself been unable to hear what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was saying, or if it had been brought to my notice that some hon. Members could not hear what he was saying, I would certainly have requested silence. I had no such request.

Mr. Marsh: On a point of order. I apologise for raising a further point of order, Sir William. As I understand the position, hon. Members on this side of the Committee, as a minority, have no protection other than yourself. This evening, we have been discussing an extremely serious issue. That is beyond doubt. We were promised—promised—a reply from the Minister, but no Government supporter has spoken and neither has the Minister spoken. The Government have used their majority to stop discussion and prevent any answer from being given. The question I am asking is this—

Mr. Denis Howell: Can there be a Closure before the Government have replied?

Mr. Marsh: If we cannot even present our arguments for a move to enable the Bill to be discussed at some other time, is there anything to prevent the Government from proceeding with the rest of the Bill without any discussion, which would be a complete negation of any democratic process?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) is seeking to repeat moving to report Progress, which I have already stated I am unable to accept.

Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order. This is a rather different matter. I can see that you are looking at a piece of paper, Sir William, and I gather that you are about to put the Question, which would preclude my putting this point of order. Is it your intention to call the Amendment in page 3, to leave out lines 39 and 40.

The Deputy-Chairman: That Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order. You have shown considerable patience with hon. Members this evening, Sir William, for which we are grateful. Do you feel able to give the Committee your reasons for accepting the


Closure Motion before we had had a single speech from the Government side?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not debatable at this time. If, subsequently, a Motion is put down, it may be considered, but the reason for accepting the Closure is not debatable now.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. So that we can get it quite clear, am I to understand that later on in this morning's entertainment we shall be discussing the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Extension) Order? May I give you notice that we intend to debate that, Sir William?

The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with me.
I now propose to put the Question.
The Question is, That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Fletcher: Surely the Committee first wishes to hear some reasons for and against that Question? In view of our discussion on the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, it cannot be the Government's intention to invite the Committee to allow this Schedule to stand without some answers to the speeches by my hon. Friends on that Act. I speak in the presence of the Leader of the House. This is a new experience for him; he assumed his office only recently. It is right to express some sympathy with him in what must be a very testing time for him, because I do not think that he will look back with much satisfaction on what has happened in Committee.
He was fortunate enough to be here during a substantial part of the debate. I am not sure whether he heard my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), but he heard a number of speakers. Unlike many other hon. Members opposite, he was present and knows that a number of my hon. Friends have very strong views on this subject. We are deeply concerned about the position of the homeless in London and other big cities. That is why we made our speeches. We fully expected a reply, if not from the Leader of the

House certainly from the Minister responsible. But the Government used their majority to move the Closure before any Ministerial reply.

The Deputy-Chairman: If I may say so with respect, the hon. Member has turned from his point of order to me to a point which he is putting to the Leader of the House. May I first reply to the point of order which he put to me?

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Sir William, I have not put a point of order. I am trying to give reasons why the Committee should not accept the Motion, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill." I am not raising a point of order. I hope that you will believe me when I say that I am genuinely trying to save the time of the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I can meet the hon. Member's wish, and I am sure the wish of the Committee, to save time by stating that it has always been ruled that the merits of any Measure which it is proposed to continue cannot be discussed on Second Reading. Mr. Speaker has ruled since 1887 that in order to discuss the operation of any Act or Order the proper course is to move to exclude that Act in Committee. The whole sense of the Ruling is that an Amendment must be put down. It would frustrate the intention of the Ruling restricting debate if there could be a full, roving debate on any of the several Acts in the Schedule on the Question of the Schedule being the Schedule to the Bill. That is the Question which I have put, and on that Question the only matter to be debated is whether all the Acts cited in the Schedule shall collectively form part of the Bill. On the Question which I have put to the Committee, that is the only issue on which a debate—a very narrow debate—could take place.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the Committee is indebted to you for that Ruling. I had looked up the Rulings of your predecessors as to what was permissible and what was not on the various stages,: of an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and, with great respect, Sir William, the passage you have quoted with reference to no debate being permitted on Second Reading has been stated by Mr. Speaker in the past.
I think I am right in saying that there has never been a Ruling that the Committee should not discuss the Question "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill". Naturally I accept your Ruling. I am not proposing to have anything like a general debate about the various Acts in the Bill. I was proceeding to say that I am not concerned with the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, on which we had a lengthy and useful discussion.
I submit, with respect, that when we come to this stage and when we are considering whether the Question which is before us now we are in the unprecedented position that in Committee we have had a debate on a Measure—the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946—to which there has been no Ministerial reply. I am sure that it would be in accordance with precedent if the opportunity presented itself in debate on the Schedule to enable some observations to be made from the Government Front Bench, in general, on the Schedule and, in particular, dealing with some of the observations made during the preceding debate.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is exactly what would be out of order on the Question "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill". It is not in order on this Question to discuss what is in the Amendments that have been discussed and, therefore, I hope that the Committee will allow me to put the Question.

Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order. A short while ago I asked whether you intended to call a particular Amendment which was down on the Order Paper. You replied that that Amendment had not been selected. If I now understand your Ruling—that one cannot at this stage discuss the individual matters, even in a general way—does not that mean that we shall not have a chance to discuss Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, since the only way to discuss that matter would be through the selection of an Amendment? That Amendment was not selected by the Chair. Therefore, if your Ruling on the Schedule is correct, there is no way for hon. Members to discuss this part of the Bill.
I submit that surely there must be some way to enable hon. Members to discuss this matter. At the moment we

shall have to approve—if your series of Rulings are correct—or disapprove of Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, without any opportunity for a single word of discussion by the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member had wished this Amendment to be discussed he or his hon. Friends could have put it down themselves. In actual fact, the only two hon. and learned Members who chose to put it down both signified that they were not anxious to move it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In view of that I, in the Chair, decided that I would not select for calling an Amendment which neither the mover nor the seconder wished to move. I abide by that.

Mr. M. Stewart: I understood that it would not be in order, on the Motion, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill," to have what I think you termed, Sir William, a general or roving debate on any particular Acts mentioned in the Bill, and that the only question before us was whether all the Measures should, collectively, stand part. As I understand that Ruling, it would not then be right to make speeches about any one of the Statutes but that if one made a speech about all of them, that would be in order.
That, I think, is what the words you used mean and I would address my query to you rather than to hon. Members opposite. If I may take it that that is so, I think we might, in your phrase, Sir William, have consideration collectively of the Statutes mentioned in the Schedule. It is a question of whether the Committee should, by a single Measure, continue collectively in existence such a miscellaneous collection of Statutes as we have in this Schedule. It is in order to keep within your Ruling that I make this point.

Mr. Fletcher: I gave way to my hon. Friend because I thought that he was raising a point of order. I was proposing to make my speech when I was interrupted.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be better if the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) were to continue. Does he wish to make a point of order or not?

Stewart: No, not now.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then I call upon him to continue his speech, but not as a point of order.

Mr. A. Evans: On a point of order, Sir William. You did tell the Committee that the last Amendment had not been selected. Subsequently, you made a different statement. First, you said that it had not been selected, and you then said that the two hon. and learned Members in whose names it was tabled had signified that they did not wish to press it. With respect, it does seem that you gave two different reasons and, if you will allow me to say so, it appeared that the two hon. and learned Members mentioned, possibly to avoid inconvenience to their colleagues, had withdrawn. After all, they are the only two hon. and learned Members on the other side of the Committee whose names are on the paper.

The Deputy-Chairman: The reason I gave was that I had not selected the Amendment. When an hon. Member expressed a feeling of doubt as to whether that was fair, I went so far as to give a reason why I had come to my decision not to select it. That reason was that I was aware of the fact that those two hon. and learned Members whose names were down to the Amendment had not expressed any wish themselves to move the Amendment. That strengthened me in my decision not to select the Amendment, and that is why it was not selected.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Evans: It struck me as strange that, in the first instance, you should state quite clearly that you had not selected the Amendment and that, a few minutes later, you should tell the Committee that the two hon. and learned Members had indicated that they did not wish to press the matter.
You will appreciate that tonight, with the rough treatment we have had from the Patronage Secretary, we feel rather sore, and our indignation is not abated if we have any suspicion at all that you have not held the scales evenly—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not criticise the Chair. If he has a feeling

that the Chair is unfair he must put down a substantive Motion on the proper occasion, but the Chair is doing its best to be fair, and it would not be right of the Chair to accept such criticisms as the hon. Member is tending to make.

Mr. Evans: I withdraw any suspicion of criticism of yourself, Sir William, but I now understand from what you have said that the reason we did not debate the last Amendment was that you had not selected it—

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Evans: —and that your statement about the two hon. and learned Members not pressing it was an irrelevant consideration.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member is entitled to say it was irrelevant. What, in fact, was relevant was that the Amendment was not selected by the Chair. The fact that the Chair had reasons for not selecting the Amendment is a little relevant, and I went so far as to give to the Committee one of the reasons why I, in the Chair, did not select it. That reason was that neither of the hon. and learned Members wished to propose the Amendment which they had put down, and that made it easier for me to come to the decision, to which I came, not to select the Amendment.

Mr. Evans: I am much obliged, Sir William. I am sure you will agree that it was much better that I should clear up the doubt I had about your two conflicting statements.

Mr. Diamond: Further to that point of order, Sir William. You will recollect that you also said that if any hon. Member had been interested in that Amendment he could have put his name to it, but when we saw—as several of us who are interested in the Amendment did see—that two hon. and learned Members already had their names to it, we naturally assumed that it would be called and that there would be no reason for us to add our names. We are not all required to add our names to an Amendment to show that we are interested in it. Could I ask you, Sir William, whether you would be prepared to reconsider your decision, in view of the fact that, quite clearly from


what you have said, you decided not to select the Amendment after you had been informed by the two hon. and learned Members that they were not anxious to move and second it?

The Deputy-Chairman: I follow the hon. Member's line of argument, but I think that I had better stick to my selection. The Amendment was, in fact, not selected, and I cannot go back to that point any more.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: Is it a fresh point of order?

Mr. Fletcher: No, Sir William, it is on this point of order. I had hoped to make some observations on the Licensing Act if that Amendment had been selected. I am sure that all hon. Members accept your decision not to select the Amendment, and the reasons you have given for not selecting it, but, having said that, it seems to me that it has a bearing on the scope which should now be permitted on the Motion which I understand is now before the Committee, namely, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill".
It was on that Motion that I was addressing the Committee when several points of order were raised, all of which have now, I think, been dealt with. Therefore, with your permission, Sir William, and for the convenience of the Committee, I would desire to give the reasons why I would ask the Committee to vote against that Motion. I understand the limitations of the debate, some of which have been indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).
My reasons for asking the Committee not to accept this as the Schedule to the Bill—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has now gone further than his point of order. I think we should return to the debate which is proceeding on the Question "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill", bearing in mind the Ruling that I gave on that Question the only matter that can be debated and decided is whether all the Acts cited in the Schedule shall collectively form part of the Bill. Mr. Michael Stewart.

Mr. M. Stewart: With respect, Sir William, I think I "jumped the gun" on my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) on this matter. I rose respectifully to a point of order to ask you to clarify your Ruling about what was in order in the debate on this Question. When you had given that clarification I then proceeded in effect to speak to the Question in the light of what you had said. In doing so, I overlooked the fact that my hon. Friend had already begun to do that, and that if we were debating the Question "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill", the Floor was properly his at that time. I am sorry for any confusion that may have been caused. I hope you may now be willing to regard my hon. Friend as having the Floor, and I might possibly catch your eye on this Question at a later stage.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I think that would keep us technically in order, with respect.
These are the reasons why I submit to the Committee that this Schedule ought not to remain in the Bill. I will try to keep my speech strictly within the limits that you have indicated, Sir William, as to what is relevant and what is not. I would have preferred it if the rules of order had permitted me to make a different kind of speech and to deal in some detail with some of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule. But owing to the rules of procedure, my hon. Friends and I are now driven to this position, that in the absence of any explanation from the Leader of the House—and I am sorry to see that he is now having to leave us—the only course which we can ask the Committee to take is to reject the whole Schedule. We are driven to invite the Committee to do that for one good reason, namely, the discourtesy with which we have been treated by the Government. The Government have behaved disgracefully, because never before in my experience as a Member of this House have I heard a whole succession of speeches on a very serious and important topic made from these benches without a single word in reply from the Government Front Bench before the Closure was moved. That appears to me to be a complete denial


of the rights of the Opposition and a complete abuse by the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must not criticise the Closure.

Mr. Fletcher: With respect, that was the last thing that I wanted to do. I was criticising the fact that no Government spokesman has sought to catch your eye during three or four hours of debate. My hon. Friends and I made a whole series of speeches, which, apart from my own, I thought were very valuable contributions to the debate. I was criticising the failure of any Government spokesman at any time to rise and try to reply to the succession of points that have been made. Therefore, owing to the disgraceful failure of the Government to reply to the criticisms, the only course which we can now adopt under our procedure is to ask the Committee to reject the whole Schedule. It seems to me to be a complete confession of failure on the part of the Minister that he did not rise to his feet during the three or four hours that were available to him, while speech after speech was being made criticising the Government's housing policy, the operation of this Act, the Government's failure to amend it, and the chain of tragic consequences for several hundreds of families—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must not seek to return to the debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not returning to the general debate, Sir Gordon, except to say that there was that debate and the Government completely failed to answer it, no doubt because of their inability to produce any answer to the series of complaints which we put to them. In view of that lamentable and deplorable failure on the part of the Government to produce a single sentence in answer to three or four hours of cogent and powerful speeches by my hon. Friends, we have no alternative but to ask the Committee to reject the Schedule as a whole.
I am quite prepared to face the consequences if, as a result of the Schedule being rejected, there are certain inconveniences, the Government will be able to bring forward fresh legislation and try to justify it. What they are not entitled to do, under the guise of the

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, is to put in the Schedule Acts which they cannot justify, which the Opposition have riddled with unanswered criticisms, and then pass them through by use of the Closure. That is a complete derogation of the rights of Parliament and of the Opposition. I hope that my hon. Friends will take the course which our procedure enables us to take, that is, to reject the whole Schedule.

Mr. Reynolds: I have sat here for about four and a half hours in the hope of explaining some of the problems which arise in my constituency as a result of one of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule. Unfortunately, owing to the rather restricted nature of the debate now on the Schedule, it will not be possible for me to say as much as I should have liked to say about the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, the hardships which are being caused to tenants of furnished property in my constituency and the lack of protection which they can have from the rent tribunals, primarily, of course, because most of them are scared to go to the tribunal knowing full well that, if they do—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now going out of order.

Mr. Reynolds: I am sorry, Sir Gordon. I was only saying that, if they do, they know that they will get notice to quit. I appreciate that I cannot go into the matter in detail now.
I should like to know what the implications of a rejection of the Schedule would be. I assume that, if the Schedule is not added to the Bill, none of the Acts will be continued and the Bill will be of no use at all. Presumably, it will either not be possible, for instance, for aliens to come into this country or it will be possible for any alien who wants to come to get on a boat and enter without restriction. I should like to know which way the result would go in respect of that Measure.
I must leave the Scottish Measures to my Scottish hon. Friends because I have no detailed knowledge of those matters. Would I be right in assuming that, if we do not accept all the Bills in the Schedule, the Accommodation Agencies Act, 1953, would disappear and—

The Chairman: I am sorry, but the hon. Member may not discuss individual Acts.

Mr. Reynolds: I am not discussing them, Sir Gordon. I am simply asking questions about the Acts contained in the Schedule.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to do that under the Ruling.

Mr. Reynolds: I understand that we may not discuss them, Sir Gordon, and I am not attempting to do so; but I thought that it would be in order to ask questions about them. However, in view of your Ruling, it will not be possible for me to pursue that further.
The fact remains that we have not had a full enough discussion about, at any rate, two of the Acts to enable us to agree to include them in the Schedule. Unfortunately, since we must approve or disapprove the Schedule as a whole, I hope that, in due course, the Committee will proceed to a Division to decide whether or not the Schedule should be added to the Bill. I am at a loss to know anything whatsoever about parts of the Schedule because we have had no explanation of what it means. Unfortunately, because of various occurrences during the debate, I do not know whether some of these Acts are necessary and ought to be included in the Schedule, whether their extension is necessary in any shape or form.

3.15 a.m.

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot now be told that, I am afraid.

Mr. Reynolds: Again I must apologise to you, Sir Gordon. If I cannot get the answers to my questions, and cannot even put the questions, according to your Ruling, in order to get the answers from the Minister, I shall find it very difficult indeed to support the Motion before the Committee. I regret this, because some of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule, despite the fact that they have been very heavily criticised during the last few hours, do provide certain safeguards for some of my constituents. I am sorry that in the circumstances, however, I cannot feel it possible to support the Motion.

Mr. A. Evans: This Schedule lists seven Acts of Parliament which we shall renew for a further period by agreeing to the Schedule. The first one is the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. It is proposed however, to continue only Section 1 of that Act, and not the other Sections.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but the hon. Member is now discussing an individual Act.

Mr. Evans: No, I am merely going through the Schedule so that we may know what we are dealing with. I think it must be in order to consider the Acts, although they are all taken collectively. They are not one Act. There are seven different Acts of Parliament.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but that is exactly what the hon. Member cannot do.

Mr. Evans: With respect, Sir Gordon, I understood that we were not allowed to discuss the Acts themselves. I have made no attempt to do that. I am merely listing the Acts in order to get clear, in my own mind at least, exactly what it is this Schedule does.

Mr. Denis Howell: Thinking aloud.

Mr. Evans: Although that may be considered time-wasting it is a process of thought some people have to adopt to get their ideas clear. All I am doing at the moment is to look at the Schedule to see what it contains.

Mr. Marsh: If my hon. Friend wants to get his mind clear, let me point out to him that there are not seven Acts of Parliament mentioned but fourteen, because amending Acts are also involved and presumably they come collectively into the Schedule.

Mr. Evans: I am much obliged. They are Acts which, as my hon. Friend says, affect the operation of the seven Acts.
The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act and the other Acts, all seven Acts, come up year after year to be renewed for a further period of one year, and it is questionable, I think, that all these seven Acts of Parliament—

Mr. Denis Howell: Fourteen.

Mr. Evans: It is seven Acts plus bits of other Acts. I think my hon. Friend


will find that the Acts listed in the Schedule have been amended in certain particulars by other Acts, just as the 1949 Act amended the Act dealing with furnished houses, as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary earlier in the debate.
The whole question arises whether it is sensible procedure for Parliament to debate each year the renewal of seven Acts. We certainly cannot give adequate consideration on this method to the Acts listed in the Schedule. The Government should consider whether the time has not arrived to end this procedure of annual renewal and to embody some if not all of these Acts in permanent legislation. That is a matter which we have a right to consider here.

The Chairman: No. That would involve an Amendment to the Schedule, which cannot be moved at this stage.

Mr. Evans: This annual renewal is wasteful. The Government should think of embodying these Acts in permanent legislation. They should end this business of annual renewal so that we do not have to experience this difficulty of considering a number of Acts of Parliament at one Sitting. The present procedure is an impossible method of debate. Each responsible Minister should consider whether these Acts should be made permanent legislation.

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot argue at this stage whether they should be permanent or not, because that is outside the scope of the Schedule.

Mr. Evans: I am arguing that we are compelled to consider at one sitting a Schedule embodying seven Acts. It is a time-wasting and unsatisfactory procedure. The Government should look at this matter, so that we may dispense with this procedure.

The Chairman: At this stage hon. Members cannot argue whether these Measures should be permanent law. It is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Evans: The Schedule provides for the continuance of the Acts. I should have thought it would be a sequence of thought to ask: should they continue?
Whether the yearly renewal procedure for some of the Acts, if not all of them,

is bad has been considered by people who have examined this subject, and they have agreed that it is. The Franks Committee on tribunals went into the matter and decided that consideration should be given to embodying one of the Measures in permanent legislation.

The Chairman: The Committee cannot debate that now.

Mr. Evans: I am about to finish, Sir Gordon, but I insist that it is a valid point to raise at this juncture. I appreciate that this procedure raises difficulties for you as well as us, and I think it is timely to raise the whole question whether or not these Acts should be embodied in permanent legislation.

Mr. Diamond: I hope I can call myself a loyal member of the Labour Party, and I hope that my hon. Friends will listen carefully to what I say. Although I am prepared to be swayed by relevant and logical arguments, at the moment I feel that the Schedule ought to be accepted.

Mr. Denis Howell: Why?

Mr. Diamond: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I will explain as carefully as I can why I think that the Schedule should be agreed to. It is divided into two parts, Part I referring to Acts to be continued until 31st December, 1962, 12½ months from now, and Part II to Acts to be continued until 31st March, 1963, three months longer.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Might I call attention to the fact that on this side of the Committee we have no objection to Conservative Members sleeping, but it is a different matter when they come over to our benches to do so?

Mr. Diamond: I have no objection to that happening. Indeed, I hope that by the time I have finished all hon. Members opposite will be asleep.
As I have said, one Part of the Schedule refers to the shorter period of extension and the other Part to the longer period. As to the general considerations on the first Part, I hope that my hon. Friends—I address myself particularly to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—will be reasonable and show their usual flexibility of mind when an hon. Member feels strongly about certain


matters, as I do about the Schedule. I was anxious to speak about certain of the matters earlier and waited 4½ hours to do so, but the opportunity was not vouchsafed to me, though I recognise that that was within the rules of order, because that was what the Chair decided. I therefore did not have an opportunity to address the Chamber. Nor did several Members opposite. Two hon. Members opposite had originally intended to speak on a certain matter but subsequently decided not to do so.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Mellish: They were stopped by the Whips.

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend is trying to divert me from the relevant comments I want to make on the Question before the Committee. The Schedule is divided into two parts, and, as I understand your helpful Ruling, Sir Gordon, there is nothing to prevent consideration of the generalities of the Bill affecting the Schedule in its two halves.
The first half deals with provisions continued until 31st December, 1962. It is true that one provision is only part of an Act and the other three provisions are full Acts. I take the view that these Acts should be continued until that date. Some of my hon. Friends may take the view that they should be continued until different dates, such as November, 1963, or possibly December, 1963.

The Chairman: They cannot argue that now. There could not be an Amendment now.

Mr. Diamond: I appreciate that. It supports my argument that it would have been not only wrong in substance but, as you have ruled, Sir Gordon, out of order for Amendments of that kind to have been moved. That supports my view that the date of 31st December, 1962, is the appropriate date to which the three Acts and the one part of an Act referred to in the first half of the Schedule should be extended.
These are as conclusive arguments as one is allowed to apply in the quite properly restricted debate we are having. I bring the same arguments to bear on the second half of the Schedule, which refers to Acts continued until 31st

March, 1963. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that on certain of these Acts—one, at all events—there was considerable discussion.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Diamond: I was addressing the Committee on the wisdom of including in the Schedule the second half, which refers to three Acts continued until 31st March, 1963. This second half is distinguished from the first half in that the Acts it lists are continued for a longer period. It is relevant that we should pay full attention to this distinction. The Government of the time obviously considered the Acts in question to have more far-reaching importance than the earlier Acts mentioned, and therefore decided that they should be continued for a longer period.

Mr. Fletcher: There is one other distinction which, no doubt, my hon. Friend has observed—they are all printed in italics.

Mr. Diamond: I had not observed that. No doubt that is a point of some importance which is why my hon. Friend's eagle eye has observed it. However, I should have thought that it would be more convenient if, in due course, my hon. Friend addressed the Committee and explained in greater detail, for those of us who are interested in these things, the reasons why italics are used in Part II and not in Part I. No doubt that is a relevant consideration. This is something which I have not seen before.

Mr. M. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) might explain it, but surely it is for the Government to explain it. We should have something on this subject from the Government Front Bench before we part with the Schedule.

Mr. Diamond: I am sure that we will have a very full explanation from the Government why Part 11 is all in italics. I was only saying that I thought that I was inadequate to put the question fully and that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. East (Mr. Fletcher) with his


legal training and much wider knowledge, could have put the question more fully. A great deal of interest and importance is attached to this and it is a pity that this discussion is going on at twenty-five minutes to four o'clock in the morning, because I am sure that otherwise it could catch the headlines of all the daily newspapers. The question should be fully considered and addressed to the Government, because I am sure that many hon. Members, including those who have been in the House of Commons for a considerable time, will not be fully aware of the distinctions to be drawn, and on similar Bills and on similar considerations might not be aware of the attention which they ought to give to the matter.
Part 11 of the Schedule deals with Bills which are to be continued until 31st March, 1963. That is a considerable period of some 16½ months. Who knows what may have happened between now and then? There may have been all sorts of international events which might have prevented us from giving adequate consideration to the extensions had they been proposed for a shorter period.
Supposing the Berlin crisis were to develop in a most unhappy way six months from now and the Bill said that the Acts should be continued merely for six months; we would then find ourselves in the unhappy position of our six-monthly attention coinciding with that crisis and it being impossible for adequate consideration to be given to further extensions.
However, wisely, the Schedule does not say that. Some of my hon. Friends have indicated that they are against this extension, but I put it to them that it has wisely prevented such a difficulty from arising and has made it possible to deal with this matter with at any rate some consideration, even though not with the fullest consideration which we might like to give this question. For that reason, many of us think it wise that these Acts are to be continued until 31st March, 1963.
Other matters might arise. For example, between now and March, 1963, possibly somewhat nearer March, 1963, and perhaps in January, 1963, there may be the consideration of our entry into

the Common Market. That is something which will have a considerable effect upon the time available for consideration of this matter. I appreciate that some of my hon. Friends have views, different from my own, about the wisdom of accepting the Schedule at the time we are entering the Common Market. That might be the over-riding factor in our decision on whether this should be the Schedule to the Bill. However, the Schedule wisely provides that these Acts shall be continued until 31st March, 1963, a period which is likely to fall some months later than our entry into the Common Market. By that time, our entry into the Common Market will have been considered and we shall be able to turn our minds once more to the position which arises when these Acts expire in 1963.

Mr. Marsh: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the Act would take effect three months after Britain's entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Diamond: No. I am sorry that I did not make it clear. I will go step by step. The first step is to be found in line 16 of page 3,
Acts continued until 31st March, 1963".
The second step is that it is widely accepted that we may join the Common Market on 1st January, 1963. Whether that is so or not, let me make that assumption. If we join the Common Market on that date, then if we take 1st January, 1963, from 31st March, 1963, we have a gap, a hiatus, of three months.

Mr. Marsh: With respect, it is a fallacious argument to assume that Britain will enter the Common Market on a particular date when the Government apparently do not know what they intend to do.

The Chairman: Order. We cannot go into the question of entering the Common Market.

Mr. Marsh: With respect, my hon. Friend made the point, otherwise I should not have pursued it. He based his argument on the assumption that these laws would be affected by Britain's entering the Common Market on 1st January, 1963. If that is not his argument, I apologise. If it is, surely we may discuss whether that is a practical proposition.

The Chairman: I did not interrupt him, but I thought that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was out of order at that stage.

Mr. Diamond: I did not intend to develop the argument for and against membership of the Common Market. I was merely giving one or two examples which lead me to the conclusion that 31st March, 1963, is an appropriate date to which the Act should be continued. I pointed to the convenience which this might be if we had joined the Common Market three months earlier, but there are many other examples, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his fertile imagination, can think of them. I have given reasons why this is an acceptable date. I cannot hope to have convinced all my hon. Friends to my point of view in so short a time, but at all events I have indicated that I have given the matter some thought in the time available since you, Sir Gordon, were good enough to help us with your Ruling and to indicate the direction which the debate might usefully take.

Mr. Fletcher: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument. He differs from me about this. I expressed the view that the Committee should reject the Schedule. I understand that my hon. Friend is giving reasons why, on balance, the Schedule should be accepted. Will his view be affected by the decision whether we join the Common Market?

The Chairman: Order. That cannot be argued at this stage.

Mr. Diamond: I should have liked to deal with my hon. Friend's interruption, because I treasure his support in any argument which I put forward. If we agree, it is probable that we are right. If we reach different conclusions, it may be that one of us is right.
3.45 a.m.
I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East and realised that he had reached the conclusion that, by and large, this Schedule should not stand part of the Bill. He did not divide his arguments as between Part I and Part II and I was led to the conclusion that my hon. Friend was of the view that both Parts should not stand part. I take

a contrary view, for I believe that both Part I and Part II should stand part. It may be that some of my hon. Friends will take a completely different view. Some may support Part I and reject Part II while others may support Part II and not Part I. However, it is difficult for one to be absolutely clear on this question because our observations must concern both Parts. The question is, therefore, that it stands part of the Bill as a whole, or not at all.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand the position to be that on this question that the Schedule Stand Part the Committee cannot divide the Schedule and express a view about Part I and Part II individually. Had hon. Members been able to do that I should have said that I welcomed Part I and not Part II. Nevertheless, it may be that my hon. Friend should bear in mind when discussing the merits or otherwise of the whole Schedule that Part I is in ordinary type and Part II is in italics, the reason being that Part II is governed by subsection 2 of Clause 1, which is also in italics, and for that reason I gather that a question of privilege will arise in another place. When the other place comes to discuss this they may benefit as a result of the observations that are being made by this Committee.

The Chairman: We cannot discuss the Schedule in two parts, because we could not have one part in the Bill and not the other. It must be considered as a whole. I think that the hon. Member would agree with that.

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful, as are my hon. Friends, for that observation. That is the view which I took and I thought that since my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East was not in favour of the Schedule I must persuade him, with such logic as I can muster, that it should be accepted. As I say, the Schedule must be considered as a whole; as a unit. Perhaps it has occurred to some of my hon. Friends, however, that when it returns from another place, half of it may have been removed.
I hope I have convinced my hon. Friend that the right course for us to take, for a variety of reasons, is to allow this Schedule to be added to the Bill


and not to vote against it. It may be that other of my hon. Friends may have wished to share my view. Naturally they did not realise that this matter would be left until 3.50 in the morning before consideration was given to it. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the representative view of my hon. Friends would have been at this stage. That is, perhaps, one good reason for not taking the matter too seriously in the Division Lobby.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East will give this matter his further consideration. I will listen carefully, as I always do, to the speech which he will no doubt make after reconsidering the matter. After listening to that speech and to the remarks which other of my hon. Friends may wish to make I will see if they have convinced me to the contrary, in which case I will join with them to press their views.

Mr. Pavitt: I defer to no one in my respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and I congratulate him on the extremely able manner in which he has put his case for the retention of the Schedule in the Bill, but I remain unconvinced. I suppose that it is inevitable after twelve hours of discussion what a Bill contains that we should get a little weary and it is to my hon. Friend's credit that, while we have been taunted in the Press with the suggestion that the Government have to provide an Opposition as well, tonight the position is reversed. It is we on this side who are doing the Government's work, My hon. Friend is to be congratulated upon the sincerity and ability with which he has stated his case.
Undoubtedly he is right in claiming that if we reject the Motion "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill", then we are rejecting all the arguments which have been going on since half-past three yesterday afternoon. I do not take my decision lightly when I say that I cannot accept his reasoning. There are so many Measures in the Schedule that it would be irresponsible, even at this hour of the morning, to signify acceptance of the many Acts and amending Acts which operate until 1st December, 1962, or 31st March, 1963.
I was fortunate enough to catch your eye earlier, Sir Gordon, on matters affecting my constituency and there has been a wide-ranging debate, not only on the different Bills, which cover the period from 1919 to 1953. The Bills have their own individual histories, and there have been thoughtful contributions from hon. Members from all parts of the country on different parts of the Schedule. Hon. Members who entered the debate, and who put down their names to Amendments, did so with a feeling of responsibility. They were here, not in order to give power or to withhold power. As a result of the debates on the various sections, I feel that I cannot really discharge my responsibilities to my constituency if, at the unsatisfactory conclusion of all our work, I can only say that we have been unable to achieve more than merely accept a "blanket"—perhaps some would say a rubber stamp—in respect of no fewer than seven Acts and amending Acts.
There has been discussion on whether these Acts are the same as when they were first instituted or whether they have been changed; whether the Acts contained within the Schedule are still relevant to the present day circumstances—

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot go into that.

Mr. Pavitt: I am looking at the whole of the Acts, Sir Gordon, and the whole of the debate, and if we could say that in the seven Acts before us there was—

Mr. A. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend hurry with his remarks? The Patronage Secretary has sent out for his troops. It looks as if we are to have another Closure Motion.

Mr. Pavitt: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I hope that his fears are misplaced, but I must confess that the previous Motion gives me no cause for confidence.
The point I was making was that this House and this Committee never do anything as a pure formality. We are trying to reach a responsible decision either to vote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester would have us, to keep this lot in, or, as my hon. Friend


the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) would have us, to keep this lot out. It is because we have not always been able in the course of thirteen or fourteen hours of debate to be satisfied about the exact consequences of passing this Schedule that I hope my hon. Friends will follow the lead given by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East.
I take it that if the Schedule is rejected nothing at all will happen to the seven Measures concerned until December, 1961; in other words, that by rejecting the Schedule we would not immediately find ourselves without the various provisions contained in those Measures—

Mr. Marsh: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that if the Schedule were rejected nothing would happen to these seven Acts until 31st December of this year. Only four of them would be so affected. The problem before us is that there are three others which would continue till March of next year. The difficulty is that there are two different periods.

Mr. Pavitt: I thank my hon. Friend, but I do not think that he has made the position any clearer. I understand that four of these Acts have a further period of twelve months to run, to December, 1962, and that the other three have an additional fifteen months—

Mr. MacColl: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong. I understand that the second lot of Acts expires in March of next year—not at the end of this year.

Mr. Marsh: Surely, the position is that all seven Acts are continued for a period of twelve months, but from different starting dates. As a result, we get the peculiar situation of four of them going to December and the other three going to March—starting their year from different dates.

Mr. Pavitt: That still does not invalidate my argument that if we now decide to reject the Schedule it does not mean that we are likely to be in an awful mess. The Government still have time to arrange for the continuation of these Measures. Therefore, this would not be a terrifically embarrassing decision. There are those hon. Members who have, on each individual Measure,

had constituency and other interests to take care of, so it is quite valid to tell the Government that we reject the Schedule.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. A. Lewis: We are discussing whether this should be the Schedule to the Bill, and, as I understood the Ruling by the Chair, we must not go into the individual Acts mentioned in the Schedule or have a general discussion. I was originally under the impression that I would be able to support the retention of the Schedule in the Bill, until my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) spoke, and now I am convinced to the contrary.
There are two parts to this Schedule. In the first part four Acts are mentioned and in the second part there are three. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East pointed out that the second part is in italics. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) went to great lengths to explain that the Acts in the latter part were to continue until 31st March, 1963. He said that this was probably something to do with the Common Market. Of course, I appreciate that we cannot develop that aspect now. My hon. Friend went on to explain that, in his view, the Acts mentioned in the second part of the Schedule were more important that those in the first part. I should like to know on what authority he bases that contention. We have not got our Scottish colleagues here, but I am sure that if they were here they would say that the first part of the Schedule is much more important to them than the second part, and I think we should have a word from the Minister—

Mr. Diamond: The first part contains the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act, 1947, and the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, both of which are continued. Has my hon. Friend had his attention drawn to the second part of the Schedule which contains the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943? For what reason does my hon. Friend say that the first-mentioned two Scottish Acts are more important than the last mentioned Scottish Act?

Mr. Lewis: I do not for one moment say that they are more important. That is the point that I want to get clear.


I want to know on what authority my hon. Friend bases his contention that the Acts mentioned in the second part are more important than those in the first part of the Schedule. He said that they are to be continued until 31st March, 1963, which is some three or four months after the date relating to those mentioned in the first part of the Schedule.

Mr. Diamond: I explained the main reason. They are in italics.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but that is only my hon. Friend's point of view. Can we have the view of the Minister? Can he advise us whether my hon. Friend is correct? I see that there is no Minister here who is in a position to answer. The Minister who should be here and who could give us an answer has now left the Chamber. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can reply. Before I make up my mind whether my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester or my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East is right, I want to be sure—

Mr. MacColl: My hon. Friend has rather challenged the competence of the Financial Secretary to deal with these important matters. If he turns to the back of the Bill he will find that the person who is responsible for the Bill is the Financial Secretary and that his is the solitary name that appears on the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend has misunderstood what I said. I would not challenge the authority or the ability of the Financial Secretary. All I want to get clear is whether he is prepared to reply. Before I can decide whether or not the Schedule should remain in the Bill, I want some clear guidance.

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend appears to be perpetuating an error which several of my hon. Friends appear to have done. The distinction between the four Acts which should continue until 31st December and the three which should continue until 31st March has on several occasions been invested with special significance because of the difference in the dates, but I thought that we had, after our discussion, agreed that the difference between them is not of significance. It arises merely from the

fact that they start from different points in time, though they are to be extended for the same period.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that point, but that still does not alter my argument that we should have a Minister to reply to clear the matter up. I am still not satisfied in my mind whether to support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East or my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. As I explained, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester changed my view when he spoke, and I hope to hear in a moment or two from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East whether he can persuade me that I am wrong.

Mr. Fletcher: In fairness to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I hope that my hon. Friend does not suggest that the hon. Gentleman is here for any purpose except to reply to the debate.

Mr. Lewis: I had not thought of that. Naturally, I assume that, as there are only two Ministers on the Front Bench, it must be either he or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport who is to reply, and I cannot imagine that the Ministry of Transport has any interest in any of the Acts referred to in the Bill. As far as I can see, none of them have anything to do with transport.

Mr. Mellish: I should not like it to be said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is not a very capable chap. I go further and say that any reply we had from him—if he were to reply to the debate—would probably be very much better than any reply we might have from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Lewis: I am not denigrating at all the ability of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, but I am sure that he would not give such an able reply as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could give, and we know that the Financial Secretary is here for the purpose of giving us his answer.
There is a conflict of opinion here between two of my hon. Friends who are experts in these matters, and no Law Officer is present to give us a legal opinion. We must rely on the Financial Secretary. Perhaps my hon. Friend the


Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl will give us the benefit of his assistance. Apparently, we cannot have an opinion from the Government Front Bench or, for that matter, from the back benches. I hope that you will allow a little more discussion, Sir William, in order to clear the matter up.

Mr. MacColl: My hon. Friend's suggestion is a flattering one, but has he noticed that the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) is here, and he is the person best able to give free legal advice? I am sure that he would be able to assist us.

Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged. If the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) is willing to give us his advice I should be quite happy, as I am sure my hon. Friends would wish me to, to give way to him so that he can give us the benefit of his advice. Otherwise I would assume that he does not want to usurp the authority of the Law Officer who is probably on his way here to give us the advice we want, and who has not been here during the whole of the debate. I had thought he would have been here to have given us advice on whether or not the Schedule should be agreed to. Hon. Members on both sides are in some doubt whether it should remain. Unless we can get a legal explanation of that question I am afraid we shall have to consider—some of us will, at any rate—forcing a Division upon it.

Mr. Marsh: I was not quite sure at one stage what it was my hon. Friend wanted legal advice upon, although I am sure he should have it if he wants it, because we are discussing a Schedule which continues some seven Acts of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen."] With great respect, there are seven Acts of Parliament and fourteen other Acts involved in the discussion of the seven, so that it appears we are discussing a total of twenty-one Acts of Parliament, seven of which, if the Committee agrees, we shall continue in force for a period of one year but from different base dates, and fourteen of which need close study before we take a decision on the other seven.
I feel very strongly inclined to oppose the Schedule on the ground that the discussion which has taken place upon this issue has been totally inadequate in view of the seriousness of the matters we are considering. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) made several attempts to introduce into the debate the question of the Common Market. With respect, I think that that is not relevant at all, and it would be a pity if hon. Members were diverted from the very serious issues with which they are faced by this Schedule. I think that the remark which my hon. Friend made at the beginning about party loyalties was equally irrelevant, since my objections to the Schedule are based upon beliefs which transcend ordinary party political arguments on this sort of thing.
We have debated these important issues only in a very perfunctory fashion—the whole of them. We have debated some of the Acts in detail and with considerable pertinacity, but there are some, certainly two, upon which there has been no debate whatever. There was a discussion on the 1946 Act, but it was not a debate, because there was no opposition—or rather, there was all Opposition but no Government point of view. A discussion in which no contribution is made from the other side and no Ministerial reply can hardly enjoy the title of debate. On the final issue which we were due to discuss, which is also included in the Schedule, there is Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, which involves some intriguing issues of local importance. At no stage has the House of Commons given proper consideration to two of the seven Acts which we are asked to continue for another year.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Pavitt: Does it not add to my hon. Friend's case that the debate has been one-sided and that the Committee has had no opportunity to discuss Amendments tabled by hon. and learned Members opposite?

Mr. Marsh: It adds weight to the argument that there has been no real discussion of part of the Schedule which we are being asked to put into operation. It is a serious Schedule. Nobody would be unaware of the considerable effect it would have on our way of life


if these seven Acts expired. We would be placed in a situation of chaos in respect of aliens, children over 13 years of age would not be permitted to assist with the potato harvest in Scotland, rent tribunals would cease, and certain licensed premises in places like Exeter and Coventry would find themselves at a disadvantage.
One must not take lightly, therefore, a decision to oppose the Schedule as a whole. Although the Acts individually may not be the epoch-shattering Measures with which the Committee is sometimes faced, collectively, all seven of them, with the relevant Sections of fourteen other Acts, would have an effect on our way of life, as I have indicated. Be that as it may, I still feel that we should oppose the inclusion of the Schedule, not only because the issues have not been properly debated but for a further serious reason.
Several questions were directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government who has since left us. He promised—he did not say "perhaps" or "maybe"—that he would answer them. He did not. The Government once again used the majority which they are always able to fall on to flatten the Opposition and break another promise given to the House of Commons. When this sort of thing happens as regularly as it has happened in recent times, we must protest. One could quote a series of occasions. There was the recent issue when the Government broke firm pledges in connection with the Gowers Report.

Mr. Hobson: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in giving on this matter an account of grievances he has had in general against the Government in the past?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) is tending to range rather wide, and I am sure that he will not do so.

Mr. Fletcher: On that point of order, Sir William. Is it not relevant—[Interruption.]

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. I heard an hon. Member say "scoundrel." Surely it is not in order—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I must be allowed to take a point of order when it is put to me. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: A point of order is being put.

Mr. Fletcher: Arising out of your Ruling, Sir William. With regard to the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson), is it not far more relevant to point out that one of the difficulties confronting my hon. Friends and myself is that we did not have the benefit of hearing the reason which the hon. and learned Member intended to give the Committee why lines 39 and 40 should be omitted from the Schedule?

Mr. Marsh: Further to the point of order. I would not challenge your Ruling, Sir William, but I was faced with a personal decision whether I should cast my vote for or against this being the Schedule to the Bill. I was seeking to explain why, although I recognise the importance of the Schedule, there were certain factors which caused me to wish to vote against it. I should have thought that if I was complaining that a Minister had broken a promise. I should be able to justify that if I could show that Ministers have regularly broken promises.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the hon. and learned Member correctly put what was said in his point of order.

Mr. Marsh: Thank you, Sir William. I will certainly not pursue that point in view of what you have just said.
For a number of reasons, it is my desire that we should vote against the Schedule, and I hope that my hon. Friends will come with me into the Lobby to vote against it.

Mr. A. Lewis: Why?

Mr. Marsh: For some of the grounds that I have mentioned. It is easily possible for some of my hon. Friends to be unnecessarily apprehensive—[Interruption.]

Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Sir William. Has not a Motion just been moved? Has it been accepted?

The Treasurer of the Household (Mr. Edward Wakefield): The Treasurer of the Household (Mr. Edward Wakefield) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Fletcher: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir William. Is there any precedent for the Closure being moved without a single word being spoken in favour of the Question by anyone on the Government benches?

Mr. Denis Howell: In eight hours.

The Deputy-Chairman: I believe there are precedents for it, and I have accepted the Motion.

Mr. A. Lewis: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir William. Did I understand that the Motion for the Closure was moved on two occasions? I believe I am right in saying that on the first occasion you would not accept

it because it was being moved while a point of order was being put to you. On the second occasion an hon. Member opposite was also putting a point of order. Might I ask why on the first occasion you would not accept the Motion while a point of order was being raised while on the second occasion you did accept it?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think I would be prepared to explain that. The Motion was made and I accepted it.

Mr. Pavitt: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir William. Is it to be taken as criticism of the Chair when an hon. Member calls your attention to the fact that a Motion had previously been put? Do you accept this censure on the Chair?

The Deputy-Chairman: Points are often put to the occupant of the Chair and he accepts them for what he thinks they are worth.

The Committee divided: Ayes 111, Noes 9.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[4.23 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Aitken, W. T.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James
Green, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Balniel, Lord
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Prior, J. M. L.


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Ramsden, James


Bossom, Clive
Hay, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hendry, Forbes
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Box, Donald
Hiley, Joseph
Rippon, Geoffrey


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bryan, Paul
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Buck, Antony
Hirst, Geoffrey
St. Clair, M.


Bullard, Denys
Hobson, John
Shaw, M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hocking, Philip N.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Holland, Philip
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Stodart, J. A.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Leburn, Gilmour
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooke, Robert
Lindsay, Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Longbottom, Charles
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Corfield, F. V.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Deedes, W. F.
McLaren, Martin
Turner, Colin


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Doughty, Charles
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


du Cann, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walder, David


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton
Worsley, Marcus


Finlay, Graeme
More, Jasper (Ludlow)



Fisher, Nigel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Noble, Michael



Foster, John
Nugent, Sir Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. David Gibson-Watt and


Gammans, Lady
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. William Whitelaw.




NOES


Evans, Albert
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Erio
Marsh, Richard



Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mellish, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Arthur Lewis and




Mr. John Diamond.

Question, That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill, put accordingly and agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

4.30 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, That I do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House.

Mr. M. Stewart: Mr. M. Stewart rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am reluctant to allow debate on this Question, having read Erskine May, page 567, which states that this is now regarded as a formal Question. That being so, I propose to put the Question forthwith.

Mr. M. Stewart: On a point of order. I, too, have consulted Erskine May on this point and I respectfuly draw your attention to the fact that Erskine May says:
This is now regarded as a formal question and the Chairman has deprecated debate.
The clear implication of those words is that this is not one of those Questions on which debate is forbidden. That is made more clear when we look up the reference given in Erskine May, which is to a debate on 15th May, 1935, when, on the Question, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House", Mr. Morgan Jones rose and the Chairman addressed him as follows:
If the hon. Member is proposing to speak on this Motion, I should like to say that it is a matter which I have had occasion to go into very carefully lately. It is quite true that technically this is a question which is debatable, but, as a matter of order and custom, we have come to the conclusion that it is not advisable in the House to follow a practice which, I believe, sometimes obtains in Standing Committee. The point is that we have been unable at present to think of anything which would be relevant on this question.
Now follows the heart of the matter:
If the hon. Member can get over that, of course I cannot stop him from speaking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1935; Vol. 301, c.1853.]
I respectfully submit that this is not one of those Questions on which debate is forbidden and that the one clear precedent which we have, and to which Erskine May refers, is a precedent to

the effect that if any hon. Member who wishes to speak to this Question can find anything relevant to say about it, the Chair cannot stop him from speaking. I further submit that the question of whether I have anything relevant to say cannot be decided before I have attempted to say it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member will appreciate that I base my Ruling on the matter of order and custom. That is not a bad thing to go on. If the hon. Member has something relevant to what I believe to be a purely formal Question, I am sure that the Committee would be glad to hear it.

Mr. Stewart: I trust that I shall have greater success in being relevant than had Mr. Morgan Jones on the occasion to which I have referred, because, having obtained the right to speak on the Question in the way I have described, he then used his opportunity for the purpose of congratulating the representatives of the Government, who had been present throughout the proceedings in Committee on that occasion, for the courteous and helpful and active way in which they had participated in the debate. At the end of it, the Chairman said that it was all quite irrelevant.
I will set your mind at rest at once, Sir William, by stating that I will say nothing like that. Anything of that kind would not merely be irrelevant to the Question; it would be wildly inappropriate in view of the behaviour of the Government representatives throughout the whole of these proceedings. I shall address myself strictly to the proposition that the Bill should be reported without Amendment to the House.
When a Bill which has been discussed in Committee of the whole House is reported, without Amendment, to the House, the normal Report stage as we call it, strictly called "Consideration", does not occur. If we report the Bill, since it has not been amended it will go straight to Third Reading, on which, of course, the debate is decidedly restricted. The Committee should, therefore, seriously consider whether the Bill


should be reported at this stage, if it is so reported, all that will remain in front of us is the very narrow debate on Third Reading.
Why do I suggest that it would be inadvisable to do so on this occasion? It is a Bill of unique character, which is concerned with seven other Statutes. We have had not a debate, but a set of proceedings in the Committee which are as unique as the Bill itself and have created a precedent which I earnestly hope the Government will never follow in future. It is quite outrageous that serious argument should be addressed over a long period on a very serious social problem and that we should have no answer from the Government to anything which has been said.
It will be within the recollection of the Committee that you decided, Sir William, after a time that the Closure should be applied to the debate. We cannot dispute that Ruling now, and perhaps we may admit that my hon. Friends had by that time managed to say the more important things which they wanted to say: [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] But it was open to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at any time to try to catch your eye. I agree that it would not have been reasonable for him to do so early in the debate, but for him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"]. I am always anxious to defer to the Rulings of the Chair, but I remind some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite that they have not yet been elected to that position. It is inexcusable of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not to have taken an opportunity to reply to any of the arguments advanced during the debate.
In the light of that, it would be wrong to report the Bill to the House. We ought to refrain from doing so as a way of expressing the Committee's disapproval of the Government's neglect of their duty in this matter. We all know that when all-night sittings occur the Committee may go through stages in which the argument becomes a little more light-hearted than at the beginning of the debate, but although we have gone through those phases I seriously believe that every hon. Member who has been diligent in his attendance during the proceedings realises that what we were discussing in the latter part

of the debate was a very great and terrible problem. In the County of London alone—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going beyond what I should properly allow on the very restricted question that I should report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House. That Question has been regarded as formal. The hon. Member has brought an example where it might conceivably not be formal, but to argue the points argued in a previous debate would clearly be out of order. I invite the hon. Member to let me put the Question according, as I said before, to the order and custom of the conduct of the House.

Mr. Stewart: If you would be so good to allow me to speak for just a few minutes, Sir William, I can complete my point. I will not repeat all the arguments. I wish merely to state that this is a very grave problem. In the time that we have been debating this matter—at the average rate of the happening of these events—another three families in the London area have been turned out of their premises.

Mr. Mellish: May I refer to this Question being dealt with in accordance with the custom and practice of Parliament? We have had this argument before and I remember an occasion when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair and when he Ruled in our favour when we sat as a House. Thus the customs and practices are made by the House. We are not rigidly bound and as we go along, by trial and error, we improve these customs and practices, for that is democracy.
In the ordinary way, and with an ordinary Bill, and when we do not encounter the sort of problems we have come up against on this occasion, it would be right and proper for those customs and practices to be observed, and we would, on the nod, agree to this stage going forward without discussion. But if we can show, as we can, that in this Bill there is good reason why we have argued as we have, we can ourselves do something about the customs and practices. I am very concerned about this point. The Chairman and Mr. Speaker have the task of protecting the minority. The crowd opposite—the


Government—will have it all their own way at the end of the day.

The Deputy-Chairman: The House can certainly change its customs, practices and its orders, but I, in this Chair tonight, am not empowered to change anything at all and I must abide by previous Rulings. I have read them correctly. This is a formal stage and, although it might be argued otherwise, it is a matter of order and custom. I have already allowed a full debate and the Committee would be right to allow me now to put the question.

Mr. Fletcher: We should all agree with our proceeding according to custom in any ordinary circumstances. But in considering this we must have regard to what has gone before. It is also a part of the order and custom of our proceedings that if there are speeches from the Opposition there is a ministerial reply from the Government. Therefore, if the earlier proceedings had followed the normal procedure, in accordance with normal custom, we should have had no quarrel. These proceedings would have been terminated earlier and this stage would have been treated as purely formal. But there was a radical departure from the ordinary procedure, customs and traditions and we feel that we must, on this occasion, exercise our rights to have some discussion on what would otherwise be a formal matter.
I had hoped that the Leader of the House would have realised that we are justified in making this protest at this stage. There has been a glaring departure from our Parliamentary procedure in that there has been speech after speech from these benches without a Government spokesman answering them; but, instead, the Closure. No reply was vouchsafed at any stage from the Government to a series of serious speeches from this side and I think that I am entitled, therefore, to say that what would ordinarily be a formal Question for the Committee is not, in our view, applicable now. We feel that we have been unfairly and improperly treated. The Government have not fulfilled their duty. After all, this is a debating Assembly, and if there is speech after speech from this side—

4.45 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. This is not the occasion to make speech after speech. This is normally a formal stage. The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, from his own Front Bench, has made his point. I think that I should be allowed to put this formal Question in the normal way.

Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order. I submit that everything I have said has been in order. You are entitled, Sir William, to ask the Committee to come to a decision, but so long as an hon. Member addresses the Committee, and is in order, I should have thought that he was entitled to do so.

The Deputy-Chairman: Why I interrupted was because I thought that the hon. Member was going beyond what is a point of order. A protest has been duly made, and noted, and I should like to proceed to put the Question.

Mr. Fletcher: Whether you are right in saying that my protest has been noted, I do not know, Sir William, but we shall be suffering a further injustice if this debate is concluded without some observations from the Leader of the House, who, I hope, will regard it as one of his functions to maintain the traditions of the House. If not, we shall have to depart from our customs on formal motions. Does the Leader of the House intend to depart from the traditions of this House?
I agree, Sir William, that we are protesting on what is ordinarily a formal Question, but our protest is justified. The House of Commons cannot discharge its functions as a debating Chamber if all the speeches are from one side. I cannot believe that what has happened this morning should be a precedent for future debates.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

4.50 a.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The Question is, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before the hon. Member goes further, I think that I


should read from page 529 of Erskine—as other hon. Members may possibly have done during the evening. With reference to the Second and Third Readings of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, Erskine May states, in a footnote:
The Chair has even assented to the proposition that there can be no discussion on either the second or third reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
I propose to follow that, and to put the Question forthwith.
The Question is—

4.51 a.m.

Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Now that the House is sitting—we have been in Committee for the last thirteen or fourteen hours—I take it that the technical position is that the House, as a House, has no knowledge—until hon. Members see the OFFICIAL REPORT—of what took place during the Committee stage of the Bill. In due course, the OFFICIAL REPORT for yesterday and today will be printed, and the House will then be seized of what occurred during the Committee stage, and will certainly then be in a better position than it is now to decide whether or not this is the appropriate moment to consider the Third Reading. I would therefore submit that this is not an appropriate moment to consider the Third Reading, and I hope that that view will commend itself to the Leader of the House and to the Government.
I am familiar, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with that quotation from Erskine May. As you will have noticed, the passage which you have read is expressed very cautiously and guardedly. Of course, Erskine May itself has to be interpreted in accordance with the precedents. In the passage from which you read there is only one authority cited for that proposition, and that was on an occasion on 14th December, 1920.
I think that that is the only occasion on which the Chair has ever considered whether or not there should be a debate on the Third Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill but, from the report in HANSARD, two things are quite obvious: first, that the Ruling then given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker was a Ruling "off the cuff", if I may say so. In other words, it was not a considered Ruling from Mr.

Speaker that there could be no debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. Secondly, I would submit that it is not a Ruling which should be regarded as a precedent which has any weight or authority in your consideration as to whether this Bill can be debated on Third Reading.
I say that for this reason. The circumstances in December, 1920, were totally different from the circumstances with which we are now presented. On that occasion, there had been a certain amount of debate during the Committee stage. The Financial Secretary's predecessor in 1920 was Mr. Stanley Baldwin, who subsequently became Prime Minister, and who, it is worth observing, had the courtesy on that occasion to address quite a number of observations to the Committee in answer to the points that had been raised by the Opposition. Not only did Mr. Baldwin reply to that debate, but Sir John Baird, who was then the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, had also taken part in the debate.

Mr. Mellish: Could my hon. Friend say who was Leader of the House then?

Mr. Fletcher: The Prime Minister was the right hon. David Lloyd George. Mr. Bonar Law was the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House—a precedent which I commend to the notice of the present Leader of the House, because I am sure that he is as concerned as we all are that our traditions should be followed and that the rights of the Opposition should be protected.
On that occasion there had been a reasoned debate in which both Mr. Baldwin and Sir John Baird had very courteously—whether convincingly or not is a matter for argument—replied to a series of speeches from the Opposition on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Therefore, I think that most hon. Members would come to the conclusion that, that debate having taken place, it would have been inappropriate to have had a debate on the Third Reading.
The Deputy-Speaker of the day—obviously without having had time to consider the matter—gave that ad hoc Ruling. I submit that there is no binding authority and no guidance to enable one to come to a decision on this occasion, when the circumstances are


totally different, when there has been no debate in the true sense of the word in Committee, when, on the contrary, there has been a series of speeches from the Opposition, to all of which the Government were totally unable to produce a single answer. There was an utter failure to answer a single point made by the Opposition, an abysmal confession of ignorance—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is going further than he requires to make his point of order. He alludes to the Ruling that I quoted from Erskine May as being an ad hoc Ruling "off the cuff" by a Deputy-Speaker. It was indeed a Ruling by a Deputy-Speaker, but it has stood in Erskine May for many years; it has not been questioned, and I believe not only that I am entitled to found my Ruling on it, but that I am in duty bound to do so. I do not accept the hon. Member's contention that I am wrong in seeking now to put the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I hope that you will allow me, quite briefly, to pursue my argument. I am sure that you would wish to do everything you reasonably can to protect the rights of the minority. I submit that in this matter, which is one of great gravity, the Opposition have a real grievance, and I venture to put two suggestions, in which I hope to have the support of the Leader of the House, if he will have the courage at least to get up and say something.
I suggest that no Ruling on this particular point ought to be given by anyone other than Mr. Speaker himself. I suggest that without any disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I may interrupt the hon. Member at this stage, I should remind him that the Ruling to which I have referred was definitely given by the Deputy-Speaker of that day, and it has stood in Erskine May for all these years and been accepted. I regard myself as bound to accept it.

Mr. Fletcher: With respect, when you say that it has stood for all these years and been accepted, may I say that this is the first time since 1920 when any

occasion has arisen to challenge it. Therefore, it is not exactly the case that this particular Ruling has been repeated and followed, observed, challenged, endorsed and ratified. There was that isolated occasion in 1920 when it came up. Since that time, it has not come up again until the present day.
Therefore, although it may have been a Ruling in 1920, I submit with great respect that it is not a Ruling which binds you today in any circumstances, and still less in the circumstances of this particular case. What I urge is that, in view of the gravity of the matter and in view of the rights of the House, a Ruling on this question should be deferred until, first, a time at which Mr. Speaker can be here, and, secondly, until a day on which Mr. Speaker has had a full opportunity to read the proceedings which took place in the Committee and decide the matter.
Being now aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Mr. Speaker has arrived, may I be allowed to summarise what I have said to you? My submission is that there is no binding authority by any of your predecessors which lays down as a Ruling of general application that the Third Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may not be debated in the House, and that the only precedent which is noted in Erskine May is an isolated observation given, as it appears, spontaneously, in 1920, since when the point has never arisen, and on that occasion it was given in totally different circumstances.
I submit that there ought not to be a Ruling on the point by Mr. Speaker until, at least, Mr. Speaker has had an opportunity of considering the proceedings which took place in the Committee of the whole House this morning and yesterday, when it will be plain that circumstances of a totally different order involving a serious departure from the customs, order and tradition of the House obtain here. I submit that those circumstances justify a reasoned debate on the Third Reading of the Bill.
I appreciate that it will be impossible for Mr. Speaker to give a Ruling on the point without having an opportunity of considering the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debate in Committee, which lasted the best part of fifteen hours, I think. In the interests of the House generally and


our procedure, I very much hope that what I have now said will be endorsed not only by my hon. Friends but also by the Leader of the House.

5.2 a.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I notice that the words in Erskine May citing the Ruling are that
The Chair has even assented"—
I draw attention to the word "even" which indicates something surprising or unusual—
to the proposition that there can be no discussion".
I ask you to consider this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. One cannot assent to a proposition unless a proposition is made. I believe that on this occasion referred to in Erskine May the point was put to the Chair that there ought not to be discussion, and the Chair assented to that view. What we notice on this occasion is that nobody has made such a proposition to the Chair. Certainly, none of my hon. Friends would put forward the view that there should be no discussion, and I think that the Government, for very shame, could not do so, because the circumstances are that we have had no Government reply to a large part of the debate on the Bill.
Surely, if the Government were now to indicate, even in a word, that a spokesman on the Treasury Bench would be prepared to make even some brief comments on Third Reading, that would be, even at this stage, well received, I think, on this side of the House. If the Government were to indicate their willingness to do that, surely it would be fully in accord with the rules of the House, both the letter and the spirit, for the Chair to agree to a Government spokesman being heard, because then it would not be a question of anybody making a proposition to the Chair that there should not be any discussion: both sides of the House would be putting to the Chair the proposition that there should be discussion, which in these circumstances, I would think with great respect, it would be right for the Chair to accept.
All that is needed, therefore, is for somebody responsible, preferably, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary to

the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or, if he thinks fit, the Leader of the House, to say that he is willing on Third Reading to make a reply to the great weight of serious argument which has been addressed to the Bill. Here is the Government's opportunity. I think that perhaps they have learned from the course of the last hour or so that to move the Closure is not the quickest way home for the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or their supporters, and they may, therefore—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will bear in mind that he is addressing the Chair on a point of order.

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged. When one looks across there one does get led on occasionally.
I conclude simply then on this point, than on my reading of what is in Erskine May, if a proposition were made by both sides of the House to the Chair that it would be proper to allow a discussion on Third Reading, it would be proper for the Chair to assent to that proposition, and that it is in the Government's hands, therefore, to create that situation, and to make it possible for the proceedings, even now, to end with some degree of mutual respect on both sides of the House

5.8 a.m.

Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order. Last Session—and I think that Mr. Speaker may recall this only too well—an almost identical point came up when we were dealing with the Consolidated Fund Bill. It was argued that we, the Opposition, could not do certain things because it was laid down in Erskine May many years ago that they could not be done. We argued about this, and it was decided—I think I am right in saying, by Mr. Deputy-Speaker—that the conditions of that day and moment warranted an exception to that rule, and we had a discussion on the point.
I think that then a principle was established, that we cannot say that a decision, made in, say, 1920, and considered right then in the circumstances, and for reasons of good practice and custom, can never be altered by the Chair, no matter what the conditions or the circumstances, and that the Chair must


simply say, as you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that was the decision made in 1920 and it must stand because it has never been challenged. I say to you now, it is now that the challenge is being made, and that the Chair must, in considering it, consider the custom of protection of minorities in this House, and that decisions can be altered by the Chair when it sees fit.
On that principle, will you not allow a debate on Third Reading, bearing in mind that the debate so far has been virtually a farce, since we have had no Ministerial reply to it, and that the only words uttered by a Government spokesman were to move the Closure?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member and the House will appreciate that I am most reluctant, in the Chair, to depart from custom and practice. The custom and practice that satisfied me was that set out in Erskine May, which referred to the debate of 1920. I read the debate of 1920, also. I am in no doubt that the Deputy-Speaker at that time was convinced that on Second and Third Reading of this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill it was proper not to have a debate. I, having listened to a very large part of the earlier stages of discussion on this Bill, feel myself so convinced. I hope that the House will allow me to do what I think right and to put the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

BRITISH PROPERTY, EGYPT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir H. Harrison.]

5.11 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Historians will argue the rights and wrongs of the Suez incident for many years to come but it is clear that one of the objects of that expedition was to protect the lives and property of British subjects. One of the results was, unfortunately, that British nationals were expelled from Egypt and their property seized. Among the large number of people so affected there were at least

two relations of mine, as well as a number of friends, and, therefore, I have a personal interest in this matter.
The lives of all these people were considerably disrupted by the action of the Egyptian Government, but they took heart from the fact that they were likely to get their property restored because this country held about £108 million in blocked balances belonging to the Egyptian Government. They were fortified in this belief by the remarks of the Foreign Secretary in the House on 16th May, 1957, when he said:
The blocked accounts are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position. The House can be sure of that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 584.]
I now want to refer to a memorandum prepared by Sir Edward Peel, whose recent death we all lament. He was one of the leaders of the British community in Egypt. The memorandum was prepared in June, 1958, and I think that the House would agree that, unfortunately, it turned out to be prophetic. Sir Edward Peel said:
If Her Majesty's Government agrees to release sterling, a condition of vital importance to claimants is that Egypt should allocate adequate amounts from it to compensate the losses of British subjects. … The sterling balances … should be conserved as a bargaining asset and released only against effective and adequate guarantees by Egypt for settlement of claims. … The desequestration of private property would not benefit owners unable to return to Egypt unless rights to sell and remit proceeds to the United Kingdom are assured. Remittance rights are an essential condition. The terms of the pre-Suez Monetary Agreement covering remittances to the United Kingdom should be re-affirmed or more favourable terms sought for those unable to return to Egypt. The restitution by Egypt of private businesses, now mostly ruined, would be valueless as compensation. …
Less than a year later a Financial Agreement between the British Government and the Egyptian Government was signed—in March, 1959—without full regard to these conditions. Under this Agreement British property was dealt with under two heads. First, there was the property that was Egyptianised, or taken over by the Egyptian Government. It was admitted at the time to be worth £45 million and compensation was to be paid to the owners out of a fund of about £27½ million paid by the Egyptian Government to this country. The compensation was to be assessed and claims


adjudicated by the Foreign Compensation Commission.
The second category of property was that which had been sequestrated by the Egyptian Government at the time of Suez. It was estimated to be worth about £130 million. It was to be de-sequestrated, or returned to the owners. The owners were given an assurance in the agreement that they would be permitted to remit at least £E5,000 to the United Kingdom, and that favourable consideration would be given to transfer in sterling in excess of that sum. Article V (1) of the Treaty covers that point. It was also laid down that claims for loss or damage to property during the period of sequestration could be made against the fund of £27½ million.
I should like to describe the results of dealing with the problem under those two heads. I will deal, first with Egyptianised property. The immediate query that occurred to claimants was whether the fund of £27½ million was sufficient to cover property estimated at the time to be worth £45 million; we are now told that claims up to a value of £65½ million have been put in to the Foreign Compensation Commission.
Reference was made to this matter by the Prime Minister on 16th March, 1959, when he told the House:
… I can say now that the Government will watch how this works out and will play their part in reaching a settlement which will be reasonable and fair, and we do not exclude a further contribution from public funds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 150.]
I would add that interim payments were made by the Foreign Compensation Commission of 70 per cent. of the claims up to £5,000, over 50 per cent. on claims up to £50,000, and on a sliding scale above that. Therefore, I think that, broadly speaking, it can be said that those persons who had their properties Egyptianised have not been unfairly or badly treated.
In contrast, I will now describe the position in regard to those who had their property sequestrated and then returned or desequestrated. There was a slow start in this process. Even now, about two and a half years after the signing of the Agreement, only about 75 per cent. of the property has been desequestrated.
That is not my main objection. The main difficulty is that when property had been returned or desequestrated it was allowed to be sold. The assets were put in a temporary resident blocked account. The account was given tax clearance and was then made non-resident, but it was still blocked, and claimants could not get the account unblocked until they got permission from the Egyptian Ministry of the Interior and the Egyptian Ministry of Finance. Very few people indeed have been able to get this clearance. Therefore, very few accounts have been unblocked and only then would transfers be allowed to the United Kingdom.
The reason for this is due not to any ill-will on the part of the Egyptian Government, but largely to their lack of sterling in the United Kingdom. Indeed, this was tacitly admitted by the Lord Privy Seal, in an Answer to a Question on 27th March, 1961, when he said that as an immediate measure the Egyptian Government would allow claimants immediately to repatriate £E1,000 per head, but as far as I have been able to find out in only 100 or 150 cases has that payment actually been effected. That is out of a total of well over 3,000 cases of individuals who had their property sequestrated.
Another manner in which the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement is not working well is that under Article V (1, c) jewellery, personal and household effects are allowed to be brought over to the United Kingdom, but difficulties are being raised about the transference of property. Again, loss or damage of property under sequestration can be a claim against the fund of £27½ million But it is extremely difficult for claimants to formulate these claims as the Egyptian Government are not releasing the information or the documents required, as they were bound to do under Article V of the Agreement. Also, the sequestration accounts, when received, are incomprehensible. I have seen some of them and they are quite unintelligible. Furthermore, I understand that the banks have been ordered by the Egyptian Government not to release papers covering the period of sequestration.
I will now sum up the difficulties under these two headings—those whose property was Egyptianised, and those


whose property was sequestrated—by quoting examples. In the first instance, take somebody who had invested £50,000 in the National Bank of Egypt, which was Egyptianised. His assets were taken over on Stock Exchange values on 30th June, 1956. The claimant would by now have recovered an interim payment of £26,000, including a good expectation of getting the balance.
The second case might be that of a person who had £50,000 invested in an Egyptian Company, say, Port Said Salt. This was sequestrated for four years. When it was released the shares were sold at great loss, the assets being paid into a blocked account. This claimant is lucky to get £E1,000 in this country, which, after exchange control charges, works out at only £842. In one case, the man receives £26,000 and expects to obtain the rest, and the other man receives only £842, which illustrates the unfair way in which the system has worked.
What action can the Government take? On 26th July, 1960, the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office said:
It can be argued that the Agreement is not being quickly enough honoured, or is not being implemented quickly enough, but I assure the House that everything possible is being done to get things moving as fast as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 1468.]
That was eighteen months ago. The position is little better today. The difficulty is not due to the ill-will of the Egyptian Government, but to their lack of sterling. Efforts should be made to provide sterling in future barter deals with Egypt. Dues for passage through the Suez Canal might be used, and expenses such as those the Government have to incur in Egypt through, for example, the maintenance of the Embassy, might be made available to cover transfers. Perhaps a more workable suggestion might be that as claimants' assets are now held in banks in Egypt in frozen accounts, Her Majesty's Government might consider making advances in this country on the security of those accounts.
I have said that to date it appears that the difficulties are not due to ill-will by the Egyptian Government, but there is now a new situation. In July, by decree, the Egyptian Government

socialised financial, insurance, commercial and industrial enterprises, including individual holdings of shares in companies. In other words, they depressed the value of those shares, took them over at a depressed value, and issued Egyptian bonds in return, which could be negotiated through the Stock Exchange, which was then immediately closed.
In one case a factory was sequestrated, desequestrated under the terms of the Agreement and later resequestrated. Compensation, if any, will be practically valueless. This is not the way in which Egypt will attract Western investment which is said to be what it desires and needs. But the position is getting even worse. In October, personal property of a number of British subjects was seized. What are the Government doing about that? Is this to be considered another form of sequestration or is it to be confiscation? Is it a temporary measure to tide over a temporary emergency in Egypt, or is it permanent and is compensation to be paid?
I maintain that Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility for the original seizure of British property, for the Agreement and for allowing Egyptian balances to be run down in this country. The Government have a responsibility for seeing that the Agreement is kept and now, two and a half years afterwards, it is clear that the Agreement is not working satisfactorily. They surely have a responsibility to protect British interest against recent acts which I can only describe as piracy.
I ask three specific questions. Will my hon. Friend say what Her Majesty's Government intend to do to redress the disparity in treatment between those who have had their property sequestrated and those who have had their property Egyptianised? Secondly, will they see that the terms of the Agreement are kept, particularly with regard to the £5,000 transfers and permission of jewellery and personal effects and furniture sent to this country, and also the provision of the money documentation? Finally, will my hon. Friend say what redress for British subjects who have had their property resequestrated is being obtained by Her Majesty's Government?

5.25 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for the opportunity which this Adjournment debate gives me of trying to clarify the present situation in connection with the Anglo-United Arab Republic Financial Agreement. I should like to thank him for his courtesy in giving me in advance an indication of the points he intended to make. It must, I fear, be recognised that the situation is in many respects still unsatisfactory, and I well appreciate the concern which has been expressed by my hon. Friend.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, the property dealt with in the Agreement falls into two categories, first, property which has been described as "Egyptianised" property, that is to say, property sold by the Egyptian Government to Egyptian concerns between certain dates and, secondly, property which was sequestrated. The Agreement provided that for Egyptianised property the Government of the U.A.R. would pay compensation to Her Majesty's Government. This amounted to £27½ million, which was duly paid and which is now being distributed to claimants by the Foreign Compensation Commission.
Sequestrated property, on the other hand, was to be released from sequestration and returned to its owners, loss or damage on it ranking for compensation against the £27½ million fund paid by the U.A.R. Out of such released property, each owner was to be authorised to transfer out of Egypt up to £E5,000, as well as jewellery and household and personal effects. The U.A.R. Government undertook to give favourable consideration to applications for further transfers above that amount.
My hon. Friend has quoted certain figures about claims against the Fund. In anticipation of that, I have obtained the most recent figures available from the Foreign Compensation Commission. Up to 31st October, the Commission had received 2,319 formulated claims, of which 1,260 had been assessed and another 98 had been either dismissed or withdrawn. The amount at which these claims were assessed was £36,175,607, and the actual interim payments made

in respect of these claims under the present scale of payments were, up to 31st October, £7,970,071.
We are considering the possibility of increasing some of the interim rates of payment. The total value of the formulated claims still oustanding is estimated by the claimants at £28,663,479, so it will be seen that the total amount of all formulated claims, assessed and unassessed, may well amount to nearly £65 million.
In addition, the Commission has received a large number of unformulated claims—more than 2,000—in which the claimants have no definite idea yet as to the extent of their losses. I think that we can also expect a large number of claims in respect of sequestration losses which hitherto have not been presented, probably due to lack of information. All these categories of claims will, of course, increase the total amount claimed. My hon. Friend referred to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 16th March, 1959, when he said:
… we do not exclude a further contribution from public funds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 150.]
He will understand that we cannot yet begin to estimate how much is involved here.
When the Agreement was concluded, it seemed that the provisions for the release and return of sequestrated property would prove satisfactory. Up to date, it appears that about two-thirds of these properties have now been released. I cannot give my hon. Friend an estimate of how long it will take to release the remaining properties. This is a matter which mainly depends on the rate of action of the Egyptian authorities concerned. I can, however, tell him that releases have been proceeding steadily, if slowly, and that some indeed have taken place since the announcement of the recent sequestration measures.
My hon. Friend has quite properly emphasised the fact that those whose property has been released, but who cannot go back to Egypt are, in effect, in a much less favourable position than those whose property was Egyptianised. That is true. Let me say at once that Her Majesty's Government are fully


alive to the disadvantages which are being suffered by the owners of released property who cannot get it out of Egypt, and we are actively examining all possible means of helping them. My hon. Friend made one or two suggestions, and we will of course, consider what he said most carefully. I can assure him that the U.A.R. Government are being left in no doubt about the great importance which we attach to remedying the various problems involved, and this includes the question of the disclosure of records for released property, to which my hon. Friend referred.
When property has been released and returned to its owners, the Agreement, as my hon. Friend explained, provides for desequestrated funds up to at least £E5,000 to be transferred into sterling. It is true that very few transfers of this sum are believed to have been authorised, and when this was taken up in Cairo with Egyptian Ministers they explained that the U.A.R. was faced with an acute shortage of foreign exchange which prevented them from giving full and immediate effect to their obligations under the Financial Agreement to authorise transfers into sterling. My hon. Friend said that he did not think that the difficulties with which the Egyptian Government are faced are due to any on their part. I think that there is no doubt that they have genuinely been short of foreign exchange.
It was for this reason that we acquiesced last March in an arrangement by which the Egyptian authorities agreed to allow, on account, the transfer out of Egypt of the first £E1,000 of each application. We felt that this was a better alternative to allowing the unfortunate owners simply to wait in the queue until enough exchange was available to meet their applications in full. So far, 234 applications for transfers into sterling are known to us to have been fully completed, and we have been notified by the U.A.R. authorities that 205 of these have been granted. This seems to be an improvement on the figure quoted by my hon. Friend. A large number of other applications must be in the pipeline—we know of about 800—but as applicants are under no obliga-

tion to inform Her Majesty's Government of the action which they have taken, it has been extremely difficult to obtain any reliable information on this subject.
Where particular cases of delay on the part of the U.A.R. authorities are brought to our notice, Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo invariably take them up vigorously with the Egyptian authorities. Furthermore, we shall continue to press the U.A.R. Government to make the necessary foreign exchange available to allow remittances up to £E5,000 to be made as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend mentioned what the then Foreign Secretary said on 16th May, 1957, when he referred to blocked accounts and said that they were security for claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government, and he properly reminded the House that under Article II of the Agreement the Egyptian sterling balances held in this country were released. When the Agreement came to be negotiated, it became clear that if there were to be any agreement at all, and if relations with the U.A.R. were to be restored on a normal basis, these balances had to be released. This situation was, of course, fully explained to the House when it approved the Agreement as presented to it by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in March, 1959.
It is true, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that the U.A.R. obtains a considerable amount of sterling each year in respect of transit dues for the Suez Canal. But this is largely offset by the fact that the U.A.R. buys very much more from the United Kingdom than we buy from them. Moreover, during recent years the U.A.R. has been running an overall deficit on her balance of payments, and this has resulted in a substantial running down of her total foreign exchange reserves.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of jewellery and household effects. Under Article V (1, c) of the Agreement, the U.A.R. authorities are, of course, obliged to allow the export of de-sequestrated jewellery and personal and household effects. Up to March, 1961, the Egyptian authorities were insisting that the value of such effects should be deducted from the £E5,000 which each person was entitled to take out. In


March, 1961, this matter was taken up by Sir George Rendel, in Cairo, with the result that the Egyptians agreed that they should allow the export of jewellery and personal effects independently of other assets. They have adhered to this and we know of no cases in which the export of jewellery or effects has been refused after the required formalities have been completed. But if my hon. Friend has any cases of such refusal, and will bring them to our attention, we will certainly take them up through the Embassy with the U.A.R. authorities concerned.
My hon. Friend has asked what we intend to do about the recent resequestration measures taken by the U.A.R. Government. These measures, the latest of which was announced on 8th November, have affected about 600 people of whom 31 are known to be British subjects. I think that it is clear, therefore, that no discrimination against British subjects was intended, but these 31 are, of course, suffering because their property has been sequestrated again. I think that it is clear that these sequestration measures and the nationalisation decrees, passed in July, are primarily measures of U.A.R. domestic policy and are not directed against British property as such.
As regards the nationalisation decrees, we have told the U.A.R. Government that we assume that the assessment of compensation and the manner in which it is to be made available will conform to the generally accepted principles of international law, and that we reserve the right to revert to this matter should we consider it necessary in the interests of British shareholders. My hon. Friend referred to the case of a factory. If he would like to send details of this to me, I will be glad to look into the matter.
Obviously, we have every sympathy with the British subjects affected by the new sequestration decrees, but I regret that at the moment we still have insufficient details of what is precisely involved. When we have sufficient information to go on we will, of course, consider urgently what steps can be taken to protect their interests. In the meantime we are doing our best to get the necessary facts. As my right hon.

Friend the Lord Privy Seal told my hon. friend on 6th November, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo has asked the Government of the U.A.R. for information of the legal basis for these measures. He raised the matter again with the Egyptian Foreign Minister two days ago and left with him an aide-memoire setting out more fully the information we seek, and we are now awaiting a reply.
The full text of the sequestration decree has not yet been published and there are various important points to which we need to know the answers. We do not know, for example, how long the sequestration is intended to last, whether any compensation will be paid, whether all those involved will be treated alike or whether each case will be treated on its merits. We are doing our best to get the answers to these questions as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, I am informed that arrangements are being made by the U.A.R. Government for the payment of monthly allowances to the owners affected by the decrees, but we do not yet know whether this will apply to all the owners nor how much the payments will amount to.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which is of great concern not only to Her Majesty's Government but to all of us. By doing so he has performed a service to those whose interests are involved, and I should like him to know that we are doing our best to resolve their many difficulties. I repeat that we shall continue to leave the Government of the U.A.R. in no doubt of the importance we attach to these matters.

Mr. Wall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he say, whether, if there is not a satisfactory answer about resequestrated property, it could form a claim to the International Court?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot answer that without finding out more about the legal aspects of the recent sequestration measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Six o'clock a.m.